Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Terrorist plot foiled
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled...Christians has Lost focus [message #71248 is a reply to message #71241] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 06:04   |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Man, what are you saying:
"I will cease my support of the war on terror when I am convinced our governement
is evil. I am not convinced yet, but I do not trust >those in power."
What kind of doubled speak is this?? Remember: A doubled minded Man is "Unstable"
in all His ways".
You Wrote: Now, if you do not see Iraq as self defense, fine, you have a
lot of company, but please give the other side some credit for good motives
as well.
You are right, I don't Iraq as self defense. We were supposed to be getting
Osama Bin Laden..???Remember. Now look at the mess we're in in Iraq. You
President, has taken this country down a very dark path in-which the majority
of his own political party does not subscibe to. With a 33-34 percent job
approval rating and his neo conservative views(Under the auspicies of Christianity)
what's to "grow" the American Empire to a region that will die before it
let's any other country set up shop.
All in all, it's in God's hands. God chooses players in the big Chess match
btw He and satan. Which means he can use some pawns like a Bush Cheney, Rice
& Rumsfeld,Libby and other neo-cons for his bidding.
One thing is for sure, God's Will; will be done.On Earth as it is in Heaven.
And his Will isthat he set out to make Earth man's dwelling place and this
time it will be King Jesus who will preside and rule forever.
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>"LaMOnt" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>DC, how can I miss-quote you by cutting & pasting your own writings?
>
>You misquoted me when you said:
>
>>So,I go out and kill a few Klux(ers) then what?? Does it bring back my
loved
>>one? Violence begats violence. Live bu the sword, you die by the sword.
>
>I never said to go out and kill anyone. That is revenge and I do not
>believe in revenge. I said it is righteous to stand up and defend your
>life and family should the lynch mob come for you. Those poor
>black americans lynched, castrated, and dragged behind cars
>needed guns, not pity.
>
>http://www.blackmanwithagun.com
>
>
>>The fact is, we as Americans are scared to death
>>that this "ride" maybe soon coming to a "screeching" halt.. That's not
unusual.
>>It's human..
>
>Every country, us and Israel included, has the right to self-defense.
>
>Now, if you do not see Iraq as self defense, fine, you have a lot
>of company, but please give the other side some credit for good
>motives as well.
>
>>But, we as Christians are supposed to be leaders and help prepare the way
>>of our Lord Jesus return. Not give into the violence, which by the way
is
>>not our fight to fight. It's a Spiritual war bwt God Almighty and satan.
>>To be honest, we are just pawns is their battle. But, we are joint heirs
>>with the Victor(God) almighty.
>>
>>It's really a shame that our Leaders have frighten the good people of this
>>nation under the auspices of following God. These leaders are no more than
>>plain Warmongers who God goes on record as saying he will judge them.
>
>There is plenty to be frightened of in this world without ascribing
>any manipulation to the gummint.
>
>The spiritual war is real, and I think it is coming. It is likely to be
>someone promising to lead us out of the morass of war and killing.
>
>He will talk about peace a lot and be very kind. Many will follow...
>
>
>>DC, do you believe inthe book of Revelations? If so, then you know what's
>>in store. Simply put..There will be some good times ahead, then, not dark
>>times. Then, finally, Glorious times. Amen!
>
>
>Revelation is not clear to me, at least not in the particulars. The
>big arc of history and who wins is clear, but those who try to find
>predictions for next week in Revelation are going to be
>disappointed.
>
>Since no two denominations agree on Revelation, I think it is a safe
>position to wait and see.
>
>I will cease my support of the war on terror when I am convinced our
>governement is evil. I am not convinced yet, but I do not trust
>those in power.
>
>take care
>
>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled [message #71249 is a reply to message #71243] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 06:08 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>If you think I'm an atheist, we are clearly not communicating, and I don't
>think the problem is entirely at my end.
I don't think you are an atheist, I didn't even say that.
What I know is that without the vertical dimension, without
Jesus' divinity, nothing he said including and especially the parts
about peace and forgiveness, mean anything, and may be discarded
at will as they have meaning (or don't) to you personally.
This places the person at the center of faith, not God, and has no
foundation. You remember the story about the wise man building
his house upon the rock? It's like that.
I never thought you were an atheist.
>I'm not really a pacifist either, and in fact I think comparing this
>misguided blunder in Iraq to WWII is an insult to every soldier who fought
>to stop Hitler. Trust me, I will shoot a bad guy, and I may even be tempted
>to start with his kneecaps.
And I believe you. I also do not object to your opposition to the
war. I do object to your characterizing the president as a greater
threat than islamic terrorism. Whether or not you are one, you use
pacifist reasoning. Sometimes, as you indicate above, the way
to peace involves unfortunate, but necessary, violence.
>I'm also not a cultural relativist, but since it seems important for you
to
>put me in a category, I'll make it easy and just tell you that I'm basically
>a utilitarian. More accurately, I'm what I would call a "golden-rule-ist,"
>which I guess would be like a utilitarian but with more concern for
>individual rights.
Then give the Iraqi's who want freedom at least the same respect
we give each other.
>I'm also not a "leftist," I just look that way because the center has been
>dragged so friggin' far to the right. Nixon would be a leftist by today's
>standard.
Nah, I was there. This is an overstatement. You are left on some
issues, as am I. No shame there.
>We all have a right to our beliefs, but what we believe effects what we
>perceive, and I feel like your strong beliefs are warping my communication
>into things I didn't even say. (e.g. "There you go... These jihadi head
>cutters, these scum murderers
>are the same as those who would prevent a kristalnacht here in America!
What
>heroes those braves jihadis' must be! good grief such is the inverted world
>of pacifist moral equivalence.")
But you warned me that if I stood up to prevent another kristalnacht
I might end up in Guantanamo!
You said that! Where did I misunderstand you?
>Believing is not knowing, and it's impossible to debate someone who seems
to
>equate the two.
Knowing is what we both claim. I claim to know the risen savior,
you claim him to be un-knowable, except as another "great
teacher". There is no difference between us in that regard.
I hope this is more clear, because I like you a lot. If I did not, I
would not say these things. I think there is a day of judgement
coming, and I *must* warn others of it. This is my duty and I
cannot be silent. When you quote Jesus to bash Christians, I must
speak up. I am not against you, just some of these ideas.
best,
DC
>PS: Sorry about the "yours in Christ" thing. That was snotty and sarcastic
>and I regret doing it.
Didn't bother me. No worries. I wish you would say it more often.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled [message #71251 is a reply to message #71246] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 06:21 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Two problems wherein a faith (any faith) based on peace & love
conflict with reality:
1.) You can't just "live & let live" when there are people out
there who are not of that mind, whether it's a Hitler or a
Ghengis Khan, or Bin Laden & his ilk.
2.) All religions are man-made, anyway - I must confess that at
this point I don't know who God is or what he's all about, or
sometimes even if he even exists, but if he's been around for
more millennia than we can even comprehend, don't you think
that since all we have are snippets of what amounts to a couple-
thousand-year long game of "telephone" that there's a better
chance than not that we (or "they", depending on who's faith
& scripture you're referring to) have all gotten it wrong
somehow, somewhere along the line?
Lots of peple throughout history have given us good guidelines
to live by... if everyone would just use common sense, that
alone tells you that the harmonious aspects of the teachings of
Jesus, Mohammed, Bhudda, Ghandi - to name a few - are certainly
better & more productive than fighting & killing... especially
in the name of one god or another. Nonetheless, unless everyone
on the planet ascribes to this, there's always going to be
someone that wants to kill you or otherwise do you harm because
their wants & needs conflict with yours. This is the reality.
So do we turn the other cheek as a nation - in other words,
follow a certain religious philosophy - when we as a nation
are supposed to have a separation of church & state? No,
because that goes against the very reason people band together,
from the very first tribes to today's systems of government.
It's at the core of our beings... people didn't first band
together becasue it's easier to have an agrarian society when
there's more people working the fields, they banded together to
protect themselves from the danger of hunting wild beasts
alone, and then as an offshoot, from the threat of other bands
trying to prevent you from hunting those same beasts because
THEY wanted to do so & bring back the food for THEIR tribe.
So, this is in our nature, and one could make the argument that
because God created us this way - with a strong survival
instinct - that it's actually his will for us to fight & kill
each other. Are we supposed to have evolved from this state by
now? Who's to say - after all, Christians don't believe in
evolution, and the bible says that God is "unchanging", so
maybe our nature isn't supposed to change either if we're made
in his image & likeness, right? See what I'm saying about
religions & things being "lost in translation" everything I
just said goes against the grain of good common sense,
doesn't it?
Just food for thought.
Neil
rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>i wonder at what point god said to nobody in particular..."really, i
>thought they were ready for me...all i said was do unto others as..."
>
>
>
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:25:48 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Dedric,
>>
>> You're very right, and I apologize. I am certainly a Christian
>>philosophically, but it's true that I was being sarcastic with my sign
off,
>>and that was disrespectful. As far as quoting Jesus, however, I do that
>>because I believe he was trying to teach us how to live in peace, and to
me
>>that is more important right now than beliefs about the afterlife.
>>
>> I would not throw stones at Christianity, but I will always throw stones
>>at hypocrisy and fanaticism, and I see a lot of those nowadays.
>>
>>Peace,
>>
>>Sarah
>>
>>
>>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>news:C106BFF9.2683%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>> Sarah,
>>>
>>> I have no intention of expanding the debate of this thread, but I felt
I
>>> should at least voice my opinion of one aspect of your last post.
>>>
>>> I respectfully request that you not publicly insult those of us who
>>> actually
>>> do believe in Christ. The tone and approach of your post led me to
>>> believe
>>> your intent with this signature and quoting of scripture was one of
>>> sarcasm
>>> and vehemence. If you don't believe, please respect those that do and
>>> don't
>>> use His name as the basis for sarcasm, or quote Bible verses to support
>>> what
>>> appears to me to be an argument of throwing stones at Christianity.
If
>>> you
>>> truly believe in peace and mutual respect, I am sure you will understand
>>> my
>>> request.
>>>
>>> If you do believe Christ, be careful about what you say, and keep reading.
>>> The truth is in there, but it doesn't come from selectively lifting verses
>>> to build an argument born of frustration. Believe me when I say that
I
>>> have
>>> weighed my words carefully in this post for the very same reason.
>>>
>>> Whether we agree with each others' positions or not, in part this debate
>>> may
>>> just be evidence that the terrorists are in effect winning (at least
their
>>> motivator is winning). Why wage jihad on Americans by blowing up
>>> buildings
>>> if you can get the people to turn on their own neighbors? This is a
>>> bigger
>>> war than just a handful of terrorists - it is a war for the hearts and
>>> souls
>>> of every human being. Even though that may sound trite or melodramatic
to
>>> some, it is true, and at the very core of the Christian faith. Deception
>>> is
>>> the greatest weapon being wielded - and I'm not talking about governments
>>> or
>>> big business - the lies and deceit there, whether real or suspected,
pale
>>> in
>>> comparison.
>>>
>>> Rome fell from within, and so may the US - the foundation is already
>>> crumbling. There is always hope, but it doesn't come from hatred - for
or
>>> from anyone, regardless of what we view as injustice or intolerance.
>>>
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 8/14/06 9:51 PM, in article 44e14375$1@linux, "Sarah"
>>> <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yours, in Christ,
>>>>
>>>> Sarah
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled...Christians has Lost focus [message #71252 is a reply to message #71248] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 06:31 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Man, what are you saying:
>"I will cease my support of the war on terror when I am convinced our governement
>is evil. I am not convinced yet, but I do not trust >those in power."
One should never trust the gummint. It's basic americanism and
goes all the way back. They have to prove themselves at every
point and on every issue.
>You Wrote: Now, if you do not see Iraq as self defense, fine, you have a
>lot of company, but please give the other side some credit for good motives
>as well.
>You are right, I don't Iraq as self defense. We were supposed to be getting
>Osama Bin Laden..???Remember.
No, we were supposed to be making ourselves safer, we've done
pretty well at that. We'll get ole ODB, errr OBL, don't worry.
>Now look at the mess we're in in Iraq. You
>President, has taken this country down a very dark path in-which the majority
>of his own political party does not subscibe to. With a 33-34 percent job
>approval rating and his neo conservative views
That's one view. If we elect an appeaser and get 10 attacks the
first year, he'll look pretty good huh?
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled [message #71256 is a reply to message #71244] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 09:08 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks Sarah. I don't have a problem at all with quoting scripture - you
are right in your intent - it was only the tone that sent a mixed message,
but no need to dwell on that.
You are exactly right, Jesus' message is one of peace, and putting faith
above our own desires and head-logic. I actually think everyone in this
thread has good points - you, DC, Neil, Lamont, Jamie, etc. When we mix the
concept of war with the faith, there are no easy answers. I don't like war.
I don't like terrorism. I don't like injustice of any kind. But I know
that Jesus teachings require a consistency of faith and trusting in Him even
when we would rather pick up a hockey stick and smack someone on the head
with it (Osama bin Laden, Kim Jung Il (sp?), Exxon, that last client... ;-).
Sidebar here...
As has been pointed out, what really makes the war vs. peace situation hard
is when we are dealing with people (terrorists) that have no concept of
respect for others, the value of life, much less tolerance, diplomacy, or
understanding. The only peaceful resolution for a terrorist is the death of
his enemy. What then is peace for the terrorist's "enemy"?...
If any of you have seen the movie "The End of The Spear", or are familiar
with story of Jim Elliot, you've seen and example of what faith really
should be. As a missionary to Ecuador, Jim Elliot and his companions were
killed when trying to reach out to the Huaorani (or Auca) Indians - he left
behind a wife and son. His wife and others went back years later and
eventually reached this once violent tribe - many became Christians, and a
decendant (grandson of one of the original Auca's responsible for Elliot's
death I believe) was on tour with Christian artist Steven Curtis Chapman a
few years ago relating the story of the incredible positive change in his
tribe due to the unyielding love of the Elliots and others, even in the face
of death. (I didn't get to see the concert, but heard it was an amazing
experience - far more than just the music). Jim Elliot gave his life
without ever seeing the fruit of his labor as have many others, but it ended
up changing more lives than just those of the Auca Indians.
So where do we draw the line between defending ourselves and being willing
to just accept the loss of life, even our own, in order to send a message of
love rather than one of defiance? Or is there even a line at all? Maybe
that's the part we have such a hard time with. It is easy to establish the
boundaries we are comfortable with (aka "relativism"), but that usually
entails putting God in a box with personally or socially acceptable wrapping
paper - either with us, or without us inside - to avoid dealing with the
less appealing parts of ourselves.
For a nation, there is no easy answer since not everyone believes the same
way, so at best a country is a compromise until it deteriorates into some
form of chaos and then reaches another compromise as a "solution". That's
really why we have war (the fall of man being the root cause, as DC pointed
out). There is no politically correct balance to be maintained in
perpetuity - that is a myth. The only constant is God and His word.
Without constants, there is nothing but a continual cycle of chaos and
compromise.
Regards,
Dedric
On 8/15/06 2:25 AM, in article 44e183aa@linux, "Sarah"
<sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> Dedric,
>
> You're very right, and I apologize. I am certainly a Christian
> philosophically, but it's true that I was being sarcastic with my sign off,
> and that was disrespectful. As far as quoting Jesus, however, I do that
> because I believe he was trying to teach us how to live in peace, and to me
> that is more important right now than beliefs about the afterlife.
>
> I would not throw stones at Christianity, but I will always throw stones
> at hypocrisy and fanaticism, and I see a lot of those nowadays.
>
> Peace,
>
> Sarah
>
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C106BFF9.2683%dterry@keyofd.net...
>> Sarah,
>>
>> I have no intention of expanding the debate of this thread, but I felt I
>> should at least voice my opinion of one aspect of your last post.
>>
>> I respectfully request that you not publicly insult those of us who
>> actually
>> do believe in Christ. The tone and approach of your post led me to
>> believe
>> your intent with this signature and quoting of scripture was one of
>> sarcasm
>> and vehemence. If you don't believe, please respect those that do and
>> don't
>> use His name as the basis for sarcasm, or quote Bible verses to support
>> what
>> appears to me to be an argument of throwing stones at Christianity. If
>> you
>> truly believe in peace and mutual respect, I am sure you will understand
>> my
>> request.
>>
>> If you do believe Christ, be careful about what you say, and keep reading.
>> The truth is in there, but it doesn't come from selectively lifting verses
>> to build an argument born of frustration. Believe me when I say that I
>> have
>> weighed my words carefully in this post for the very same reason.
>>
>> Whether we agree with each others' positions or not, in part this debate
>> may
>> just be evidence that the terrorists are in effect winning (at least their
>> motivator is winning). Why wage jihad on Americans by blowing up
>> buildings
>> if you can get the people to turn on their own neighbors? This is a
>> bigger
>> war than just a handful of terrorists - it is a war for the hearts and
>> souls
>> of every human being. Even though that may sound trite or melodramatic to
>> some, it is true, and at the very core of the Christian faith. Deception
>> is
>> the greatest weapon being wielded - and I'm not talking about governments
>> or
>> big business - the lies and deceit there, whether real or suspected, pale
>> in
>> comparison.
>>
>> Rome fell from within, and so may the US - the foundation is already
>> crumbling. There is always hope, but it doesn't come from hatred - for or
>> from anyone, regardless of what we view as injustice or intolerance.
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 8/14/06 9:51 PM, in article 44e14375$1@linux, "Sarah"
>> <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yours, in Christ,
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled...Christians has Lost focus [message #71257 is a reply to message #71238] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 09:17 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah........I know.......sorry.........couldn't resist
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:44e157b4$1@linux...
>
> Oh Boy..
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >> Oh yeah, Jesus also goes on record to say "Love they Enemies"..I know,
> >what
> >> a hard thing to do, but we took an "Oath of Faith " to follow his
(Jesus)
> >> teachings. So, we are not to only pick out his commandments that suits
> or
> >> fit us depending on the situation. LAD
> >
> >
> >Forgiving them (terrorists) I believe is God's function. Our job is to
> >simply arrange the meeting!
> > - Norman Swartzkoph
> >
> >;o)
> >
> >
> >
> >"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:44e0c513$1@linux...
> >>
> >> As a believeing Christian,
> >> why should we do "Anything at to save oursleves form the inevitable"??
> >> If Jesus is soon to return, then why are so worried about the end
times??
> >>
> >> We are to pray and help those who are not saved, to get saved..
> >> Jesus goes on record to say that " No one but the Father(God) knows the
> >end
> >> of time(earth), to be ready (Spiritualy) when he (Jesus) comes..
> >> He aslo states, "There will be wars AND Rumors of wars, daughters
against
> >> mothers, sons against fathers, nations against nations..But "FEAR
Not"..
> >>
> >> It seems that we (Christians) are fearing for the Jesus return instead
> of
> >> Celebrating his coming..
> >> We(Christians) need to read the test again..
> >>
> >> Oh yeah, Jesus also goes on record to say "Love they Enemies"..I know,
> >what
> >> a hard thing to do, but we took an "Oath of Faith " to follow his
(Jesus)
> >> teachings. So, we are not to only pick out his commandments that suits
> or
> >> fit us depending on the situation. LAD
> >>
> >>
> >> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Hi Sarah,
> >> >
> >> >Well, I suspect there are all sorts of things in our world that Jesus
> >> >disapproves of, including slavery, female circumciscion,
> >> >sharia, burqa's, the deliberate targeting of civilians, and
> >> >Islamofascism in general. (Oh, and not to mention those who don't
> >> >believe in him, attributing positions to him to make political points)
> >> >
> >> >But there is certainly lots of guilt to go around isn't there?
> >> >
> >> >That's why Christians believe these to be the last days of earth's
> >> >history. There are no easy answers. Maybe no answers at all,
> >> >except to hold fast and warn everyone of what is coming.
> >> >
> >> >Please notice though, that we are not "fighting them here", we
> >> >are, quite successfuly *catching* them here, before any fighting
> >> >is needed. Weakening the ghouls and head choppers makes us
> >> >safer, it is clear. Give them ground, and they use the ground for
> >> >more attacks. Appease them and you get more of the same.
> >> >This is not disputable.
> >> >Just take them at their own words. They clearly see your version
> >> >of "peace" as weakness and an opportunity to kill more of us.
> >> >
> >> >Yet, it is really hard to take a purely right wing position, I know.
> I
> >> >DO NOT trust our gummint one little bit. Too many soldiers died
> >> >in Vietnam for no reason to do that. Venal, cowardly, and amoral
> >> >leaders are responsible for the deaths of too many great young men
> >> >and women to trust them. (Bill Clinton was no better than
> >> >Nixon and Johnson BTW, just read "Blackhawk Down") At least
> >> >W is commited to victory.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The only thing even worse than blind patriotism is the insanity being
> >> >peddled by the left.
> >> >
> >> >And as a Christian I admit to the strong possibility of a time in the
> >> >near future, when there is no difference, morally, between the
> >> >right and left whatsoever.
> >> >
> >> >And then shall the end come.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >DC
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.om> wrote:
> >> >>I didn't ask why they were foiled, silly. You said, "we need to know
> >> >>exactly how these plots were foiled," so I was just repeating that
and
> >>
> >> >>offering up an answer that I, of course, do not believe at all. I
was
> >>
> >> >>merely making fun of those people who apparently do believe these
> >things,
> >> >
> >> >>and attempting to satirically point out the particular absurdity of
> the
> >> >
> >> >>"fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here,"
justification
> >> >for
> >> >>Iraq. I don't actually have "my own personal Jesus," but somehow I
> just
> >> >
> >> >>don't think he would approve of all the "collateral damage."
> >> >>
> >> >>Perhaps you knew I was being "tongue in cheek," and you were too and
> I
> >> just
> >> >
> >> >>missed the subtlety. :)
> >> >>
> >> >>Shalom,
> >> >>
> >> >>Sarah J. Burke, RN
> >> >>
> >> >>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> >> >>news:44e01125$1@linux...
> >> >>> Well, y'see, we've proved now that Jesus can kick Mohammed's
> >> >>>> ass, thereby demoralizing and discouraging all the would be
> >terrorists
> >> >in
> >> >>>> the world.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Well, I guess if that's what you believed foiled these attacks then
> >why
> >> >
> >> >>> are
> >> >>> you asking why they were foiled?
> >> >>> I'm not so sure it was Jesus personally, but I guess, if you say
so.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:44e00d42$1@linux...
> >> >>>> How these plots were foiled? How these plots were foiled?!?
Weren't
> >> >
> >> >>>> they
> >> >>>> foiled because Freedom is on the March in Iraq? Aren't we
fighting
> >>
> >> >>>> "them"
> >> >>>> there, so we don't have to fight "them" here? The British police
> >could
> >> >>>> never have thwarted this plot if we hadn't invaded Iraq, right?
> How
> >> >does
> >> >>>> this work? Well, y'see, we've proved now that Jesus can kick
> >Mohammed's
> >> >>>> ass, thereby demoralizing and discouraging all the would be
> >terrorists
> >> >in
> >> >>>> the world. Well, except for those ones that just popped up in
> >England,
> >> >>> but
> >> >>>> those are the last ones. Really.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Sarah
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> >> >>>> news:44db78dd@linux...
> >> >>>> > We need to know exactly how these plots were foiled. I'm
depending
> >> >on
> >> >>> the
> >> >>>> > NY
> >> >>>> > times to save us from the evil bastards that stopped this from
> >> >>> happening.
> >> >>>> > I'm sure my rights have been violated somehow.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > Sorry..... I couldn't resist. Things were getting so boring with
> >all
> >> >>> these
> >> >>>> > relavent audio posts and all.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > There goes the neighborhood.....
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > ;o)
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled [message #71258 is a reply to message #71246] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 09:26 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
.......hey.......this was interpreted by men, right? Maybe the dude was
having a little fun and what god really said was "do unto others *before*?
I mean........that god guy is a riot, don't you think? The burning bush and
all? We've got gas seeps from the coal seams around here and on any given
day somewhere in these parts, there is likely to be a burning bush (most
likely sagebrush or a juniper). The other day some dude was sitting on the
crapper smoking a cigarette and dropped the butt (pun intended) in the
thundermug. Thre was natural gas in the groundwater and the cigarette
ignited the gas, providing him a spiritual experience.
When god is made in man's image, all sorts of cool stuff can happen.
;o)
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ob3e29pl390s0a5jahu40c25lamovs3fj@4ax.com...
> i wonder at what point god said to nobody in particular..."really, i
> thought they were ready for me...all i said was do unto others as..."
>
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:25:48 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dedric,
> >
> > You're very right, and I apologize. I am certainly a Christian
> >philosophically, but it's true that I was being sarcastic with my sign
off,
> >and that was disrespectful. As far as quoting Jesus, however, I do that
> >because I believe he was trying to teach us how to live in peace, and to
me
> >that is more important right now than beliefs about the afterlife.
> >
> > I would not throw stones at Christianity, but I will always throw
stones
> >at hypocrisy and fanaticism, and I see a lot of those nowadays.
> >
> >Peace,
> >
> >Sarah
> >
> >
> >"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> >news:C106BFF9.2683%dterry@keyofd.net...
> >> Sarah,
> >>
> >> I have no intention of expanding the debate of this thread, but I felt
I
> >> should at least voice my opinion of one aspect of your last post.
> >>
> >> I respectfully request that you not publicly insult those of us who
> >> actually
> >> do believe in Christ. The tone and approach of your post led me to
> >> believe
> >> your intent with this signature and quoting of scripture was one of
> >> sarcasm
> >> and vehemence. If you don't believe, please respect those that do and
> >> don't
> >> use His name as the basis for sarcasm, or quote Bible verses to support
> >> what
> >> appears to me to be an argument of throwing stones at Christianity. If
> >> you
> >> truly believe in peace and mutual respect, I am sure you will
understand
> >> my
> >> request.
> >>
> >> If you do believe Christ, be careful about what you say, and keep
reading.
> >> The truth is in there, but it doesn't come from selectively lifting
verses
> >> to build an argument born of frustration. Believe me when I say that I
> >> have
> >> weighed my words carefully in this post for the very same reason.
> >>
> >> Whether we agree with each others' positions or not, in part this
debate
> >> may
> >> just be evidence that the terrorists are in effect winning (at least
their
> >> motivator is winning). Why wage jihad on Americans by blowing up
> >> buildings
> >> if you can get the people to turn on their own neighbors? This is a
> >> bigger
> >> war than just a handful of terrorists - it is a war for the hearts and
> >> souls
> >> of every human being. Even though that may sound trite or melodramatic
to
> >> some, it is true, and at the very core of the Christian faith.
Deception
> >> is
> >> the greatest weapon being wielded - and I'm not talking about
governments
> >> or
> >> big business - the lies and deceit there, whether real or suspected,
pale
> >> in
> >> comparison.
> >>
> >> Rome fell from within, and so may the US - the foundation is already
> >> crumbling. There is always hope, but it doesn't come from hatred - for
or
> >> from anyone, regardless of what we view as injustice or intolerance.
> >>
> >> Dedric
> >>
> >> On 8/14/06 9:51 PM, in article 44e14375$1@linux, "Sarah"
> >> <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Yours, in Christ,
> >>>
> >>> Sarah
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled...Christians has Lost focus [message #71259 is a reply to message #71252] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 09:57 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What This "gummint" ???
"DC" <dc@spammersincongress.com> wrote:
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Man, what are you saying:
>>"I will cease my support of the war on terror when I am convinced our governement
>>is evil. I am not convinced yet, but I do not trust >those in power."
>
>One should never trust the gummint. It's basic americanism and
>goes all the way back. They have to prove themselves at every
>point and on every issue.
>
>
>
>>You Wrote: Now, if you do not see Iraq as self defense, fine, you have
a
>>lot of company, but please give the other side some credit for good motives
>>as well.
>
>>You are right, I don't Iraq as self defense. We were supposed to be getting
>>Osama Bin Laden..???Remember.
>
>No, we were supposed to be making ourselves safer, we've done
>pretty well at that. We'll get ole ODB, errr OBL, don't worry.
>
>
>>Now look at the mess we're in in Iraq. You
>>President, has taken this country down a very dark path in-which the majority
>>of his own political party does not subscibe to. With a 33-34 percent
job
>>approval rating and his neo conservative views
>
>
>That's one view. If we elect an appeaser and get 10 attacks the
>first year, he'll look pretty good huh?
>
>
>DC
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled [message #71260 is a reply to message #71256] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 10:09 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"So where do we draw the line between defending ourselves and being willing
to just accept the loss of life, even our own, in order to send a message
of love rather than one of defiance"
Amen Brother.. Amen.
That's my point:As Christians to my eyes, there is very little in the "laying
down" ones life (without violence) in order send a message of Jesus...Than
give in to satans tacticts of hate. This is not God's way.. There must be
those who are Willing and Willfully to lay down his or her life(s) like Jesusdid
for all of us. That's the example. Yes, it's hard and difficult to concieve,
But, he (Jesus) showed us the way..
LAD
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Thanks Sarah. I don't have a problem at all with quoting scripture - you
>are right in your intent - it was only the tone that sent a mixed message,
>but no need to dwell on that.
>
>You are exactly right, Jesus' message is one of peace, and putting faith
>above our own desires and head-logic. I actually think everyone in this
>thread has good points - you, DC, Neil, Lamont, Jamie, etc. When we mix
the
>concept of war with the faith, there are no easy answers. I don't like
war.
>I don't like terrorism. I don't like injustice of any kind. But I know
>that Jesus teachings require a consistency of faith and trusting in Him
even
>when we would rather pick up a hockey stick and smack someone on the head
>with it (Osama bin Laden, Kim Jung Il (sp?), Exxon, that last client...
;-).
>
>Sidebar here...
>
>As has been pointed out, what really makes the war vs. peace situation hard
>is when we are dealing with people (terrorists) that have no concept of
>respect for others, the value of life, much less tolerance, diplomacy, or
>understanding. The only peaceful resolution for a terrorist is the death
of
>his enemy. What then is peace for the terrorist's "enemy"?...
>
>If any of you have seen the movie "The End of The Spear", or are familiar
>with story of Jim Elliot, you've seen and example of what faith really
>should be. As a missionary to Ecuador, Jim Elliot and his companions were
>killed when trying to reach out to the Huaorani (or Auca) Indians - he left
>behind a wife and son. His wife and others went back years later and
>eventually reached this once violent tribe - many became Christians, and
a
>decendant (grandson of one of the original Auca's responsible for Elliot's
>death I believe) was on tour with Christian artist Steven Curtis Chapman
a
>few years ago relating the story of the incredible positive change in his
>tribe due to the unyielding love of the Elliots and others, even in the
face
>of death. (I didn't get to see the concert, but heard it was an amazing
>experience - far more than just the music). Jim Elliot gave his life
>without ever seeing the fruit of his labor as have many others, but it ended
>up changing more lives than just those of the Auca Indians.
>
>So where do we draw the line between defending ourselves and being willing
>to just accept the loss of life, even our own, in order to send a message
of
>love rather than one of defiance? Or is there even a line at all? Maybe
>that's the part we have such a hard time with. It is easy to establish
the
>boundaries we are comfortable with (aka "relativism"), but that usually
>entails putting God in a box with personally or socially acceptable wrapping
>paper - either with us, or without us inside - to avoid dealing with the
>less appealing parts of ourselves.
>
>For a nation, there is no easy answer since not everyone believes the same
>way, so at best a country is a compromise until it deteriorates into some
>form of chaos and then reaches another compromise as a "solution". That's
>really why we have war (the fall of man being the root cause, as DC pointed
>out). There is no politically correct balance to be maintained in
>perpetuity - that is a myth. The only constant is God and His word.
>Without constants, there is nothing but a continual cycle of chaos and
>compromise.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 8/15/06 2:25 AM, in article 44e183aa@linux, "Sarah"
><sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>
>> Dedric,
>>
>> You're very right, and I apologize. I am certainly a Christian
>> philosophically, but it's true that I was being sarcastic with my sign
off,
>> and that was disrespectful. As far as quoting Jesus, however, I do that
>> because I believe he was trying to teach us how to live in peace, and
to me
>> that is more important right now than beliefs about the afterlife.
>>
>> I would not throw stones at Christianity, but I will always throw stones
>> at hypocrisy and fanaticism, and I see a lot of those nowadays.
>>
>> Peace,
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>> news:C106BFF9.2683%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>> Sarah,
>>>
>>> I have no intention of expanding the debate of this thread, but I felt
I
>>> should at least voice my opinion of one aspect of your last post.
>>>
>>> I respectfully request that you not publicly insult those of us who
>>> actually
>>> do believe in Christ. The tone and approach of your post led me to
>>> believe
>>> your intent with this signature and quoting of scripture was one of
>>> sarcasm
>>> and vehemence. If you don't believe, please respect those that do and
>>> don't
>>> use His name as the basis for sarcasm, or quote Bible verses to support
>>> what
>>> appears to me to be an argument of throwing stones at Christianity.
If
>>> you
>>> truly believe in peace and mutual respect, I am sure you will understand
>>> my
>>> request.
>>>
>>> If you do believe Christ, be careful about what you say, and keep reading.
>>> The truth is in there, but it doesn't come from selectively lifting verses
>>> to build an argument born of frustration. Believe me when I say that
I
>>> have
>>> weighed my words carefully in this post for the very same reason.
>>>
>>> Whether we agree with each others' positions or not, in part this debate
>>> may
>>> just be evidence that the terrorists are in effect winning (at least
their
>>> motivator is winning). Why wage jihad on Americans by blowing up
>>> buildings
>>> if you can get the people to turn on their own neighbors? This is a
>>> bigger
>>> war than just a handful of terrorists - it is a war for the hearts and
>>> souls
>>> of every human being. Even though that may sound trite or melodramatic
to
>>> some, it is true, and at the very core of the Christian faith. Deception
>>> is
>>> the greatest weapon being wielded - and I'm not talking about governments
>>> or
>>> big business - the lies and deceit there, whether real or suspected,
pale
>>> in
>>> comparison.
>>>
>>> Rome fell from within, and so may the US - the foundation is already
>>> crumbling. There is always hope, but it doesn't come from hatred - for
or
>>> from anyone, regardless of what we view as injustice or intolerance.
>>>
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 8/14/06 9:51 PM, in article 44e14375$1@linux, "Sarah"
>>> <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yours, in Christ,
>>>>
>>>> Sarah
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled [message #71261 is a reply to message #71258] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 11:04 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i'd say he's/she/s probably laughing his/hers ass of at our collective
righteous follies but i'm not sure he/she has one.
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:26:40 -0600, "DJ"
<animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>......hey.......this was interpreted by men, right? Maybe the dude was
>having a little fun and what god really said was "do unto others *before*?
>
>I mean........that god guy is a riot, don't you think? The burning bush and
>all? We've got gas seeps from the coal seams around here and on any given
>day somewhere in these parts, there is likely to be a burning bush (most
>likely sagebrush or a juniper). The other day some dude was sitting on the
>crapper smoking a cigarette and dropped the butt (pun intended) in the
>thundermug. Thre was natural gas in the groundwater and the cigarette
>ignited the gas, providing him a spiritual experience.
>
>When god is made in man's image, all sorts of cool stuff can happen.
>
>;o)
>
>
>
>
>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2ob3e29pl390s0a5jahu40c25lamovs3fj@4ax.com...
>> i wonder at what point god said to nobody in particular..."really, i
>> thought they were ready for me...all i said was do unto others as..."
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:25:48 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Dedric,
>> >
>> > You're very right, and I apologize. I am certainly a Christian
>> >philosophically, but it's true that I was being sarcastic with my sign
>off,
>> >and that was disrespectful. As far as quoting Jesus, however, I do that
>> >because I believe he was trying to teach us how to live in peace, and to
>me
>> >that is more important right now than beliefs about the afterlife.
>> >
>> > I would not throw stones at Christianity, but I will always throw
>stones
>> >at hypocrisy and fanaticism, and I see a lot of those nowadays.
>> >
>> >Peace,
>> >
>> >Sarah
>> >
>> >
>> >"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>> >news:C106BFF9.2683%dterry@keyofd.net...
>> >> Sarah,
>> >>
>> >> I have no intention of expanding the debate of this thread, but I felt
>I
>> >> should at least voice my opinion of one aspect of your last post.
>> >>
>> >> I respectfully request that you not publicly insult those of us who
>> >> actually
>> >> do believe in Christ. The tone and approach of your post led me to
>> >> believe
>> >> your intent with this signature and quoting of scripture was one of
>> >> sarcasm
>> >> and vehemence. If you don't believe, please respect those that do and
>> >> don't
>> >> use His name as the basis for sarcasm, or quote Bible verses to support
>> >> what
>> >> appears to me to be an argument of throwing stones at Christianity. If
>> >> you
>> >> truly believe in peace and mutual respect, I am sure you will
>understand
>> >> my
>> >> request.
>> >>
>> >> If you do believe Christ, be careful about what you say, and keep
>reading.
>> >> The truth is in there, but it doesn't come from selectively lifting
>verses
>> >> to build an argument born of frustration. Believe me when I say that I
>> >> have
>> >> weighed my words carefully in this post for the very same reason.
>> >>
>> >> Whether we agree with each others' positions or not, in part this
>debate
>> >> may
>> >> just be evidence that the terrorists are in effect winning (at least
>their
>> >> motivator is winning). Why wage jihad on Americans by blowing up
>> >> buildings
>> >> if you can get the people to turn on their own neighbors? This is a
>> >> bigger
>> >> war than just a handful of terrorists - it is a war for the hearts and
>> >> souls
>> >> of every human being. Even though that may sound trite or melodramatic
>to
>> >> some, it is true, and at the very core of the Christian faith.
>Deception
>> >> is
>> >> the greatest weapon being wielded - and I'm not talking about
>governments
>> >> or
>> >> big business - the lies and deceit there, whether real or suspected,
>pale
>> >> in
>> >> comparison.
>> >>
>> >> Rome fell from within, and so may the US - the foundation is already
>> >> crumbling. There is always hope, but it doesn't come from hatred - for
>or
>> >> from anyone, regardless of what we view as injustice or intolerance.
>> >>
>> >> Dedric
>> >>
>> >> On 8/14/06 9:51 PM, in article 44e14375$1@linux, "Sarah"
>> >> <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yours, in Christ,
>> >>>
>> >>> Sarah
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled [message #71268 is a reply to message #71233] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 12:07 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
(Speaking from personal experience).
Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then left it
up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition. The
"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and effective
way to live peacefully with our fellow humans. And in my interpretation,
this also means that if someone steals, rapes, or kills, they are
essentially saying, "it's OK if you rob, rape, or kill me," hence, the
usefulness of prisons and gas chambers.
As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine with
the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to say
"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here --
none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then. And I'm
sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's just
stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward human
societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired by a
supreme being. Most likely they were inspired by a strong desire to keep
order in their societies, which is admirable.
Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What do you
think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown rice?
I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100? 500?
1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and their
families.
Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think of some
heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's a
nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits and
chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
Sarah
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled [message #71275 is a reply to message #71271] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 12:57 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey, a girl can dream, can't she?
S
"gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSP.com> wrote in message news:44e223f2$1@linux...
>
> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits and
>>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>
>>Sarah
>>
>
> Not very likely since the Bush administration has drafted amendments to
> the
> War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible
> criminal charges for authorizing humiliating and degrading treatment of
> detainees
> or worse.
>
> The White House, without elaboration, said in a statement that the bill
> "will
> apply to any conduct by any U.S. personnel, whether committed before or
> after
> the law is enacted."
>
>
> See:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-warc rimes10aug10,1,4466016.story?coll=la-news-a_section
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled...Christians has Lost focus [message #71277 is a reply to message #71217] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 13:54 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Just a quick note here. Your beliefs about what _I consider_ an historically
circumscribed, morally questionable iron age Levantine sky god are your business--unless
and until they interfere with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
Jefferson so eloquently promised me. However, the only thing that is 'surgical'
about a 'strike' is that it might keep more of the attackers' soldiers from
having surgery. Unless the attacker has a) perfect intelligence, b) perfectly
accurate weapons, and c) the target isn't around anyone else, there is no
such thing as a 'surgical strike.' So, if the target agrees to be in a field
at a particular time and the weapons of the attacker always work, we can
strike him 'surgically.'
Instead air power (nobody every talks about attacks by infantry or artilery
being 'surgical') always involves 'collateral damage' which is a highly dubious
way to say 'dead civilians.' The ratio of civilian to Hezbollah dead is somewhere
between 2.5:1 or 7:1 depending on whose stats you believe, which I would
call far from surgical except in the sense it kept the pilots out of surgery.
All of which might be perfectly valid military strategy, I'm not arguing
that, I'm only saying that as long as we lie to ourselves about what's going
on, we'll never figure how to do it better.
TCB
"DC" <dc@spammersinchulavista.com> wrote:
>
>"Lamont Davis" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>DC,
>>You said: "He also never defined loving your enemies as letting them murder
>>your family, nor turning"..
>
>
>>If you truly believe your above statement: Then me as an African American(Who's
>>Great Grandfather was in-slaved) and who's past ancestors were mammed,
torturted,
>>beaten, women repeatedly and brutally raped, hung, castrated, lynched,
tared
>>& feathered ,whipped, & murdered. According to your set uf biblical rules
>>and interpretation, "African Americans should view all whites(Christians
>>included) as their enemy and never trust them as long as they live.?????????
>
>
>Why would you do that to people who had nothing to do with it?
>That would simply make you as evil as the lynch mobs.
>
>Your reasoning is faulty at any rate. The analogy would only be
>true if the question at hand was you handing over your family
>to ku kluxers for lynching in the name of forgiveness.
>
>I would hope you would rise up and take
>the lives of any ku kluxers who would try to do that. I would
>consider that a righteous act, as a Christian. Wouldn't you?
>
>
>>What kind of life is that for any African American to live, hating Whites.??
>>Holding on to past generations wrong doings only "kills you" on the inside.
>>Not forgiving, actually does you more harm than the one doing the evil
deeds..
>
>Bingo. Listen, I was really angry after the latest bunch of jihadis
>were caught trying to blow up airplanes, and I read Dr. Yeagley's
>web site.
>
>http://www.badeagle.com/
>
>He is convinced that it is time to deport muslims.. I thought about
>that, and sure enough, when I picked my kid up from karate that
>night there was a new student there, with his family, all muslim.
>
>Nice people.
>
>Coincidence? nah. I don't usually go in to pick her up. It was clear
>to me that Jesus would not deport muslims. (I told Yeagley about
>this too)
>
>Hating muslims is simply evil. I will not do it. I don't even need to
>forgive those nice folks at karate since they were not responsible.
>
>Forgive the jihadi's? What would be the point? Forgiveness must
>be redemptive. Turning the other cheek can be VERY redemptive,
>but handing over the other daughter to a rapist is a sin, since it
>results in nothing but evil for everyone involved.
>
>
>
>>Jesus (God) ways are not Man's evil wicked, divisive ways. Jesus say to
>turn
>>the other cheek, because operating under the "Messianic Law" of Eye for
>and
>>Eye yield "Nothing" but 10,000 years of silly fighting with no end in sight.
>>
>>What happens when a man turns the the proverbial cheek?
>>Is he the weaker one?? Even if the aggressor keeps hitting you, eventually,
>>he starts to understand that he cannot break you down" and thus he starts
>>to honor your calm strength..
>
>
>Doesn't work with bombs. There is no redemption and no softening
>of hearts.
>
>Do you think your application of Jesus' advice was meant for Hitler?
>Would it have worked?
>Why do you think it will work with Hezbollah?
>
>Who is redeemed when all the good people are dead?
>
>
>
>>Well you say " Our enemies only no one way and that their agression". Well,
>>what has that gotten the USA?? Once we gave into their aggression, we now
>>have "Lowered" our standards" to their level.. Now, who's running who..??
>
>It has gotten us relative peace since 911. What would
>appeasement of evil have gotten us?
>
>We have NOT lowered our standard to their level. We put those
>who target civlians on trial, they put them up as martyrs. Israel
>pays, every day, with their blood for their desire to not kill
>innocents. The jihadis put the rockets in the middle of
>neighborhoods so that innocents may be killed and paraded for
>cameras.
>
>Israel loses the best and bravest conducting surgical strikes to
>protect the innocent when they could have simply leveled the
>whole neighborhood and lost none of their own.
>
>If you think the west is no different than the jihadis, you are simply
>not morally serious.
>
>
>>The Late Dr Martin Luther King Jr, used Ghandi's method of change their
>"Non-Violence"
>>and it was effective.
>
>And you know what? It would work like magic if the jihadi's would
>use it. Want their own country? Great. Sit down, go on hunger
>strike, march! Nah, they won't because they desire one thing and
>one thing only; the destruction of Israel and the death of the Jews.
>
>Take them at their words. Believe them.
>
>BTW, Ghandi's method has limits and in his own case became
>nothing but self righteousness to the point he ended up killing
>his wife because he would not allow an injection of antibiotics.
>
>He called the injection "violence" and would not permit it, so she
>died of an easily-treatable infection.
>
>Think Jesus approved?
>
>
>>Some in our race (Islam) wanted to use Force, which
>>would've only incited a full-out race war. What good would that have done??What
>>would've been gained if the African American populous would've listened
>to
>>the Nation of Islam and gone "Guns Blazing"?? We'd still be killing each
>>other. Thanks God cooler heads prevailed..
>
>
>Wouldn't have happened. The Nation of Islam would have been
>annihilated and many innocents would have suffered, most of them
>black. The remaining black americans (the vast majority) would
>have been operating some of the weapons cutting down the Nation
>of Islam. We would have gone on as a country, just like we did after
>the SLA. Sorry, but that's reality.
>
>There is no equivilence between national defense, carried out to the
>best of our ability, and the potential actions of the Nation of Islam.
>
>
>>All in all, God ways are the best way and not Man's way.
>>LAD..
>
>You are right, and what scares the crap out of me is the idea of
>being led into war by a corrupt leader and having those deaths on
>my head. I hope I can see the point at which we can no longer
>support the govt. but I do not think we have reached it yet.
>
>
>Hey, BTW. I am African as well. Got my results from the
>National Geographic Genographic test.
>
>https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
>
>I thought we were Italian on my Dad's side, but it turns out that
>Dad's family started in Somalia and Ethopia. We are most highly
>reresented in the current population of North Africans and there
>are Jews, Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards in their too, but it is an African
>family line.
>
>Do the test if you can, but prepared to be surprised.
>
>DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled [message #71279 is a reply to message #71268] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 14:19 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>(Speaking from personal experience).
Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
human at the source.
I disagree emphatically.
Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then left
it
>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
they do? All is permitted.
This is not God's plan for us.
>The
>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and effective
>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
rules".
And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine with
>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to say
>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here
--
>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then. And
I'm
>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's just
>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward human
>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired by
a
>supreme being.
And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
themselves...
You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
assumptions about existence.
>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What do
you
>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown rice?
>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
500?
>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and their
>families.
>
>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think of
some
>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's a
>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits and
>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>
>Sarah
And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
would have to.
We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves to do
what they must to protect our way of life.
Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Terrorist plot foiled...Christians has Lost focus [message #71280 is a reply to message #71277] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 14:40 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
However, the only thing that is 'surgical'
>about a 'strike' is that it might keep more of the attackers' soldiers from
>having surgery. Unless the attacker has a) perfect intelligence, b) perfectly
>accurate weapons, and c) the target isn't around anyone else, there is no
>such thing as a 'surgical strike.' So, if the target agrees to be in a field
>at a particular time and the weapons of the attacker always work, we can
>strike him 'surgically.'
Well you missed the point. I tried to find the reference but could
not. What happened was that a group of hezbollahs was firing
rockets out of a neighborhood in Tyre. Israel knew where they
were, and instead of leveling the area, which would have cost
no Israeli lives, they sent in some of their best special forces guys
and took out the hezbollahs, but recieved 2 casualties in the
process.
The point was that Israel takes casualties to prevent the loss of
innocent life when they sould have blown the whole area off the
map, while the hezbollas and Hamas and the rest of the wretched
Islamofascists do all they can to take innocent life.
Why does this not provoke more outrage?
>Instead air power (nobody every talks about attacks by infantry or artilery
>being 'surgical')
Well, I did. It was a ground attack by Israeli SF troops.
>The ratio of civilian to Hezbollah dead is somewhere
>between 2.5:1 or 7:1 depending on whose stats you believe, which I would
>call far from surgical except in the sense it kept the pilots out of surgery.
And the ratio would be even higher if the ghouls could make it so.
Surely you know that they place their rockets and other munitions,
not to mention themselves, in with the general populace? That this
is done to produce the maximum number of collateral deaths
precisely to show the gullible and win the war of public opinion?
The ghouls are responsible for those dead bodies, not Israel.
>All of which might be perfectly valid military strategy, I'm not arguing
>that, I'm only saying that as long as we lie to ourselves about what's going
>on, we'll never figure how to do it better.
Absolutely.
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: So why do they want to kill us? [message #71310 is a reply to message #71307] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 10:00 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In any conflict it is wise to consider the true interests of every side
in order to have any hope of resolution.
For Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia is bound to be key. He's from there. From
our perspective, 9/11 was an attack by Saudi Arabians on the USA.
The Iraq embargo is moot. But our involvement in Iraq has gotten much
greater since those days.
Deej, you may scoff, but I think it's fairly obvious we're in the region
because of the resources there. Official rationalizations aside, current
strategy seems to be to surround oil fields with US and British forces.
Saudi, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq...Iran is on the radar.
Privatizing foreign aid is an interesting idea but it seems impractical.
On one hand it might lessen foreign lobbying and meddling with our
government. OTOH, it makes government less relevant and removes an
important element of foreign policy in favor of a more chaotic approach.
Granted that such chaos might make better choices at times. Private
sources already send money all over the world for various reasons, is
there any prohibition on that now?
Dropping support for Israel would be a bad move on many levels. However,
coming up with a consistent rational policy toward peace in the region
would be beneficial, with an attempt at understanding and working toward
the compatible interests of all parties. Our involvement on that level
seems to wax and wane.
Aggressive religious fanaticism is a recipe for disaster anywhere on the
globe. Aggressive expansionist nationalism also falls into that
category. Both exist in the region. Framing the situation in "crusade"
language, as Bush once did, supports Haig's point.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1001h.asp
>
> Your thoughts on this article? Are the assumptions made valid?
>
> If not, why?
>
> Are the options suggested as solutions good ones?
>
> If not, why?
>
> I have my own thoughts on this (of course ) that I don't have time to post
> right now, but I thought this article was pretty succinct, though by virtue
> of it's being succinct, perhaps oversimplified.
>
> One thing that is ignored is the ideological aspect as is ascribed to
> Islamic fundamentalism regarding the *Caliphate* mentality.
>
> I was watching the evil Fox news last night and saw and interview with
> Alexander Haig wherein he stated that though the ideological religious
> fanaticism was certainly real, our administration had been doing a bit of
> that as well. I thought this was an *astute* observation personally.
>
> Anyway.....FWIW.......I'd be interested in the opinions offered here.
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: So why do they want to kill us? [message #71312 is a reply to message #71307] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 11:16 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, Deej, you're asking an almost impossibly broad question. To discuss
the narrow question of 'why do they want to kill us' I would suggest both
books by Michael Scheuer, the former head of the 'bin Laden' desk at the
CIA. His first book was 'Through Our Enimies' Eyes' which was a post 9/11
attempt to answer this question quite explicity, but from the perspective
of the muslim world. The second books is called 'Imperial Hubris' and is
much more about the folly of remaking Afghanistan and Iraq into Swiss canton
style democracies. It cost him his job, and now he writes and does the lecture
circuit.
However, it's hard to read those books without asking if maybe we've been
hornswoggled by our own government as to what our military and secret services
are up to. Are we really a benevolent force in the world? If we are, are
there reasons we would not be perceived that way? Might some of those who
'hate us' have taken our measure accurately and found us wanting? For a sobering,
though slanted, run down of that, William Blum's 'Killing Hope' is superb
for content, almost unreadablef or style. And it's depressing. And most of
it is true, though you can argue that some degree of it is/was justified.
If that isn't enough reading, I would suggest Chalmers Johnson's 'The Sorrows
of Empire' which is about the archepligo of military bases and installations
around the world that serve so well to piss off a lot of the locals. In some
ways it's the most shocking of all, and also superbly written by a veteran
academic.
The problem with reading all of these books is that, with the exception of
Blum who has a clear axe to grind, they are sobering, conservative accounts
of a world almost totally unlike the one we see on network news and CNN every
night. As one who loves US history perhaps a little too much, it took me
10+ years of really going through this kind of stuff to arrive at my current
proudly isolationist (we call patriotic, or paleo-conservative) view of the
world and the US. FWIW, it's tough going, and learning about what the US
has done from Iran to Greece to El Salvador to Iraq will not often make you
terribly proud. Despite that I still came out a genuine patriot, in my opinion
much more of a patriot than most of the flag wavers and bible thumpers who
now soil the word itself.
TCB
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1001h.asp
>
>Your thoughts on this article? Are the assumptions made valid?
>
>If not, why?
>
>Are the options suggested as solutions good ones?
>
>If not, why?
>
>I have my own thoughts on this (of course ) that I don't have time to post
>right now, but I thought this article was pretty succinct, though by virtue
>of it's being succinct, perhaps oversimplified.
>
>One thing that is ignored is the ideological aspect as is ascribed to
>Islamic fundamentalism regarding the *Caliphate* mentality.
>
>I was watching the evil Fox news last night and saw and interview with
>Alexander Haig wherein he stated that though the ideological religious
>fanaticism was certainly real, our administration had been doing a bit of
>that as well. I thought this was an *astute* observation personally.
>
>Anyway.....FWIW.......I'd be interested in the opinions offered here.
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Oh gawd . . [message #71315 is a reply to message #71279] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 12:00 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
(heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled to
make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong in
your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to view
me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith is
essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest on
logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition if
you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If you
have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally do
not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims. I
do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
"supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial and
frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's silly
to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the sky."
I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite, my
mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma that
I have no reason to believe.
Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words: I
have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time ago),
and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe that
the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human beings
whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in a way
that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years. What I
don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because you
were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you happened
to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this make
any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a threat
to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God, Heaven,
or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by
fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the evil of
"ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what has
been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
potential consequences of this.
But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour that I
could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now that
the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
wrong simply because they contradict yours.
OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
Sarah
"DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>
> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>(Speaking from personal experience).
>
> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
> human at the source.
>
> I disagree emphatically.
>
> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>
>
>>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then left
> it
>>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>
>
> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
> they do? All is permitted.
>
> This is not God's plan for us.
>
>
>>The
>>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>effective
>
>>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>
> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
> rules".
>
> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>
>
>>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine with
>
>>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to say
>
>>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here
> --
>>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then. And
> I'm
>>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's just
>
>>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>>human
>
>>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired by
> a
>>supreme being.
>
>
> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
> themselves...
>
> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
> assumptions about existence.
>
>
>>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What do
> you
>>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>>rice?
>
>>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
> 500?
>>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>>their
>
>>families.
>>
>>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>
>>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think of
> some
>>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's a
>
>>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits and
>
>>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>
>>Sarah
>
>
> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
> would have to.
>
> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves to do
> what they must to protect our way of life.
> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>
> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>
> DC
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71316 is a reply to message #71315] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 11:57 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sarah,
Let's just agree to disagree. I'll be happy to discuss this further
privately if you like.
best,
DC
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>(heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
>years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
to
>make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
in
>your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to
view
>me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
>
>First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith is
>essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest
on
>logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition if
>you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If
you
>have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>
>Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally
do
>not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
>evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
I
>do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>"supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial and
>frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's silly
>to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the sky."
>I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite, my
>mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
that
>I have no reason to believe.
>
>Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words: I
>have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time ago),
>and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe that
>the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
>of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
>to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human beings
>whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
>word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>
>Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in a
way
>that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
>believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years. What
I
>don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because you
>were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
>believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you happened
>to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
>India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>
>Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this make
>any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a threat
>to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>
>You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
>other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God, Heaven,
>or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
>sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained
by
>fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>
>And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the evil
of
>"ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what
has
>been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
>that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>potential consequences of this.
>
>But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour that
I
>could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now that
>the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
>them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
>are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
>wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>
>OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>
>Sarah
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>
>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>>(Speaking from personal experience).
>>
>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>> human at the source.
>>
>> I disagree emphatically.
>>
>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then left
>> it
>>>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>>
>>
>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>> they do? All is permitted.
>>
>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>
>>
>>>The
>>>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>effective
>>
>>>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>
>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>> rules".
>>
>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>
>>
>>>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine with
>>
>>>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to say
>>
>>>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here
>> --
>>>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then. And
>> I'm
>>>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's
just
>>
>>>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>>>human
>>
>>>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired
by
>> a
>>>supreme being.
>>
>>
>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>> themselves...
>>
>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>> assumptions about existence.
>>
>>
>>>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What do
>> you
>>>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>>>rice?
>>
>>>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
>> 500?
>>>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>>>their
>>
>>>families.
>>>
>>>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>>
>>>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think of
>> some
>>>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's
a
>>
>>>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits
and
>>
>>>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>
>>>Sarah
>>
>>
>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>> would have to.
>>
>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves to
do
>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>
>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71319 is a reply to message #71315] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 13:04 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
sarah
everyone wants to be the holder of "the truth" and feel compelled to
convince others even if they have to kill them to do it. thankfully
not all go to that extreme...unfortunately many are willing to do just
that...on both sides of the argument. religion has to be in the top
ten killers of humanity throughout history.
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:00:26 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
wrote:
>(heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
>years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled to
>make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong in
>your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to view
>me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
>
>First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith is
>essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest on
>logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition if
>you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If you
>have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>
>Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally do
>not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
>evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims. I
>do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>"supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial and
>frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's silly
>to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the sky."
>I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite, my
>mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma that
>I have no reason to believe.
>
>Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words: I
>have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time ago),
>and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe that
>the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
>of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
>to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human beings
>whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
>word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>
>Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in a way
>that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
>believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years. What I
>don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because you
>were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
>believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you happened
>to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
>India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>
>Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this make
>any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a threat
>to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>
>You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
>other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God, Heaven,
>or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
>sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by
>fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>
>And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the evil of
>"ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what has
>been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
>that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>potential consequences of this.
>
>But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour that I
>could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now that
>the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
>them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
>are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
>wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>
>OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>
>Sarah
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>
>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>>(Speaking from personal experience).
>>
>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>> human at the source.
>>
>> I disagree emphatically.
>>
>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then left
>> it
>>>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>>
>>
>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>> they do? All is permitted.
>>
>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>
>>
>>>The
>>>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>effective
>>
>>>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>
>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>> rules".
>>
>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>
>>
>>>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine with
>>
>>>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to say
>>
>>>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here
>> --
>>>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then. And
>> I'm
>>>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's just
>>
>>>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>>>human
>>
>>>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired by
>> a
>>>supreme being.
>>
>>
>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>> themselves...
>>
>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>> assumptions about existence.
>>
>>
>>>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What do
>> you
>>>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>>>rice?
>>
>>>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
>> 500?
>>>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>>>their
>>
>>>families.
>>>
>>>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>>
>>>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think of
>> some
>>>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's a
>>
>>>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits and
>>
>>>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>
>>>Sarah
>>
>>
>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>> would have to.
>>
>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves to do
>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>
>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71320 is a reply to message #71319] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 13:17 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'd be interested to hear the nine candidates you would propose ahead of it.
TCB
rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>sarah
>
>everyone wants to be the holder of "the truth" and feel compelled to
>convince others even if they have to kill them to do it. thankfully
>not all go to that extreme...unfortunately many are willing to do just
>that...on both sides of the argument. religion has to be in the top
>ten killers of humanity throughout history.
>
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:00:26 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
>wrote:
>
>>(heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
>>years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
to
>>make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
in
>>your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to
view
>>me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
>>
>>First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith is
>>essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest
on
>>logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition
if
>>you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If
you
>>have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>>gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>
>>Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally
do
>>not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
>>evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
I
>>do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>>connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>>"supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial
and
>>frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's
silly
>>to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the
sky."
>>I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite, my
>>mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
that
>>I have no reason to believe.
>>
>>Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words:
I
>>have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time
ago),
>>and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe that
>>the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
>>of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
>>to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human beings
>>whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
>>word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>>
>>Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in
a way
>>that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
>>believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years. What
I
>>don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because
you
>>were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
>>believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you happened
>>to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
>>India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>
>>Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this make
>>any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a threat
>>to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>>
>>You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
>>other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>>wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God, Heaven,
>>or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>>accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
>>sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>>necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained
by
>>fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>>
>>And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the evil
of
>>"ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what
has
>>been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
>>that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>>potential consequences of this.
>>
>>But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour that
I
>>could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now
that
>>the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
>>them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
>>are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
>>wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>
>>OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>
>>Sarah
>>
>>
>>"DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>
>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>>>(Speaking from personal experience).
>>>
>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>>> human at the source.
>>>
>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>
>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then
left
>>> it
>>>>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>>>
>>>
>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>
>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>
>>>
>>>>The
>>>>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>>effective
>>>
>>>>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>
>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>> rules".
>>>
>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>
>>>
>>>>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine
with
>>>
>>>>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to
say
>>>
>>>>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here
>>> --
>>>>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then.
And
>>> I'm
>>>>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's
just
>>>
>>>>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>>>>human
>>>
>>>>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired
by
>>> a
>>>>supreme being.
>>>
>>>
>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>> themselves...
>>>
>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>>>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What
do
>>> you
>>>>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>>>>rice?
>>>
>>>>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
>>> 500?
>>>>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>>>>their
>>>
>>>>families.
>>>>
>>>>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>>>
>>>>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think
of
>>> some
>>>>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's
a
>>>
>>>>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits
and
>>>
>>>>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>
>>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>>> would have to.
>>>
>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves
to do
>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>
>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>
>>> DC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71328 is a reply to message #71315] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 16:51 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive dialog
between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
nature of reality.
Great post, Sarah.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Sarah wrote:
> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled to
> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong in
> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to view
> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
>
> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith is
> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest on
> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition if
> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If you
> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>
> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally do
> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims. I
> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial and
> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's silly
> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the sky."
> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite, my
> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma that
> I have no reason to believe.
>
> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words: I
> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time ago),
> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe that
> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human beings
> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>
> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in a way
> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years. What I
> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because you
> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you happened
> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>
> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this make
> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a threat
> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>
> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God, Heaven,
> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by
> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>
> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the evil of
> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what has
> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
> potential consequences of this.
>
> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour that I
> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now that
> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>
> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>> human at the source.
>>
>> I disagree emphatically.
>>
>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then left
>> it
>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>>
>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>> they do? All is permitted.
>>
>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>
>>
>>> The
>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>> effective
>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>> rules".
>>
>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>
>>
>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine with
>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to say
>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here
>> --
>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then. And
>> I'm
>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's just
>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>>> human
>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired by
>> a
>>> supreme being.
>>
>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>> themselves...
>>
>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>> assumptions about existence.
>>
>>
>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What do
>> you
>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>>> rice?
>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
>> 500?
>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>>> their
>>> families.
>>>
>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think of
>> some
>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's a
>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits and
>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>
>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>> would have to.
>>
>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves to do
>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>
>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71331 is a reply to message #71315] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 18:53 |
macle
Messages: 47
Registered: July 2006
|
Member |
|
|
Oh my gawd, lucifer!
either way, it's so absurd,
look around it's
such a blur you see!!
Why is live and let live so hard? I dunno. Seems so easy.
I've taken to burying my head in the sand. Ignorance is bliss
sort of nearly almost. It'll all work out in the end (except
for those of us burning in hell for eternity...OUCH!)
Sarah, I listened to the clips on your site...very very
nice Paris sound. Thumbs up!
Peace brothers and sisters!!
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>(heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
>years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
to
>make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
in
>your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to
view
>me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
>
>First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith is
>essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest
on
>logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition if
>you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If
you
>have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>
>Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally
do
>not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
>evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
I
>do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>"supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial and
>frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's silly
>to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the sky."
>I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite, my
>mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
that
>I have no reason to believe.
>
>Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words: I
>have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time ago),
>and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe that
>the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
>of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
>to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human beings
>whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
>word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>
>Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in a
way
>that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
>believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years. What
I
>don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because you
>were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
>believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you happened
>to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
>India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>
>Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this make
>any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a threat
>to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>
>You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
>other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God, Heaven,
>or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
>sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained
by
>fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>
>And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the evil
of
>"ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what
has
>been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
>that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>potential consequences of this.
>
>But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour that
I
>could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now that
>the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
>them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
>are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
>wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>
>OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>
>Sarah
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>
>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>>(Speaking from personal experience).
>>
>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>> human at the source.
>>
>> I disagree emphatically.
>>
>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then left
>> it
>>>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>>
>>
>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>> they do? All is permitted.
>>
>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>
>>
>>>The
>>>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>effective
>>
>>>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>
>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>> rules".
>>
>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>
>>
>>>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine with
>>
>>>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to say
>>
>>>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here
>> --
>>>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then. And
>> I'm
>>>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's
just
>>
>>>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>>>human
>>
>>>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired
by
>> a
>>>supreme being.
>>
>>
>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>> themselves...
>>
>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>> assumptions about existence.
>>
>>
>>>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What do
>> you
>>>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>>>rice?
>>
>>>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
>> 500?
>>>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>>>their
>>
>>>families.
>>>
>>>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>>
>>>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think of
>> some
>>>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's
a
>>
>>>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits
and
>>
>>>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>
>>>Sarah
>>
>>
>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>> would have to.
>>
>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves to
do
>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>
>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71333 is a reply to message #71315] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 18:34 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ya know......as much as you and I seem to disagree at times, it's truly
amazing how similarly we view things.
Regards,
Deej
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:44e369e2@linux...
> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
to
> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
in
> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to
view
> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
>
> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith is
> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest on
> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition if
> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If
you
> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>
> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally do
> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
I
> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial and
> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's
silly
> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the
sky."
> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite, my
> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
that
> I have no reason to believe.
>
> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words: I
> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time
ago),
> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe that
> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
smattering
> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human
beings
> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>
> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in a
way
> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years. What
I
> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because you
> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
happened
> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>
> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this make
> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a
threat
> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>
> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
Heaven,
> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by
> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>
> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the evil
of
> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what
has
> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
> potential consequences of this.
>
> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour that
I
> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now
that
> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>
> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
> >
> > "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> >>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
> >>(Speaking from personal experience).
> >
> > Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
> > unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
> > solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
> > human at the source.
> >
> > I disagree emphatically.
> >
> > Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
> > that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
> > changes the whole world. Scary huh?
> >
> >
> >>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then
left
> > it
> >>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
> >
> >
> > If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
> > matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
> > cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
> > they do? All is permitted.
> >
> > This is not God's plan for us.
> >
> >
> >>The
> >>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
> >>effective
> >
> >>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
> >
> > And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
> > rules".
> >
> > And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
> > opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
> >
> >
> >>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine
with
> >
> >>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to say
> >
> >>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here
> > --
> >>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then. And
> > I'm
> >>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's
just
> >
> >>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
> >>human
> >
> >>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired
by
> > a
> >>supreme being.
> >
> >
> > And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
> > It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
> > care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
> > the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
> > human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
> > themselves...
> >
> > You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
> > assumptions about existence.
> >
> >
> >>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
> >>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What do
> > you
> >>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
> >>rice?
> >
> >>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
> > 500?
> >>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
> >>their
> >
> >>families.
> >>
> >>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or
maimed.
> >
> >>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think of
> > some
> >>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's a
> >
> >>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits
and
> >
> >>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
> >>
> >>Sarah
> >
> >
> > And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
> > longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
> > wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
> > or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
> > would have to.
> >
> > We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves to
do
> > what they must to protect our way of life.
> > Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
> > years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
> > WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
> >
> > And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
> > ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
> > for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
> > some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
> > convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
> > Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
> >
> > DC
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71337 is a reply to message #71328] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 20:27 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
> nature of reality.
I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the nightly news
bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd rather
be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife would rather
die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3ae02@linux...
>
> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive dialog
> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
> nature of reality.
>
> Great post, Sarah.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> Sarah wrote:
> > (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
> > years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
to
> > make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
in
> > your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to
view
> > me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call
"me."
> >
> > First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith is
> > essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest
on
> > logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition
if
> > you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If
you
> > have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
> > gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
> > demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
> >
> > Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally
do
> > not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
> > evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
I
> > do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
> > connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
> > "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial
and
> > frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's
silly
> > to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the
sky."
> > I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite, my
> > mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
that
> > I have no reason to believe.
> >
> > Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words: I
> > have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time
ago),
> > and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe
that
> > the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
smattering
> > of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it
claims
> > to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human
beings
> > whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
> > word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
> >
> > Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in a
way
> > that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
> > believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
What I
> > don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because
you
> > were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
> > believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
happened
> > to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
> > India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
> >
> > Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
> > omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this
make
> > any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a
threat
> > to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
> >
> > You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
> > other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
> > wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
Heaven,
> > or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
> > accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
> > sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
> > necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained
by
> > fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
> >
> > And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the
evil of
> > "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what
has
> > been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
> > that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
> > potential consequences of this.
> >
> > But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour
that I
> > could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now
that
> > the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
> > them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
beliefs
> > are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
> > wrong simply because they contradict yours.
> >
> > OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> > "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
> >> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> >>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
> >>> (Speaking from personal experience).
> >> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
> >> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
> >> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
> >> human at the source.
> >>
> >> I disagree emphatically.
> >>
> >> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
> >> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
> >> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then
left
> >> it
> >>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
> >>
> >> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
> >> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
> >> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
> >> they do? All is permitted.
> >>
> >> This is not God's plan for us.
> >>
> >>
> >>> The
> >>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
> >>> effective
> >>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
> >> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
> >> rules".
> >>
> >> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
> >> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
> >>
> >>
> >>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine
with
> >>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to
say
> >>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
here
> >> --
> >>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then.
And
> >> I'm
> >>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's
just
> >>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
> >>> human
> >>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired
by
> >> a
> >>> supreme being.
> >>
> >> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
> >> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
> >> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
> >> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
> >> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
> >> themselves...
> >>
> >> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
> >> assumptions about existence.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
> >>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What
do
> >> you
> >>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
> >>> rice?
> >>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
> >> 500?
> >>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
> >>> their
> >>> families.
> >>>
> >>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or
maimed.
> >>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think
of
> >> some
> >>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's
a
> >>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits
and
> >>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
> >>>
> >>> Sarah
> >>
> >> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
> >> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
> >> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
> >> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
> >> would have to.
> >>
> >> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves to
do
> >> what they must to protect our way of life.
> >> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
> >> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
> >> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
> >>
> >> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
> >> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
> >> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
> >> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
> >> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
> >> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
> >>
> >> DC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71339 is a reply to message #71337] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 21:34 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing for
disagreement.
Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the nightly
news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango to
convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors concluded
weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about them?
Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people with
little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used and
manipulated in the process.
I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
>> nature of reality.
>
> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the nightly news
> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd rather
> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife would rather
> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
>
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3ae02@linux...
>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive dialog
>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
>> nature of reality.
>>
>> Great post, Sarah.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Sarah wrote:
>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
> to
>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
> in
>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to
> view
>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call
> "me."
>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith is
>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest
> on
>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition
> if
>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If
> you
>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>
>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally
> do
>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
> I
>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial
> and
>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's
> silly
>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the
> sky."
>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite, my
>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
> that
>>> I have no reason to believe.
>>>
>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words: I
>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time
> ago),
>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe
> that
>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
> smattering
>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it
> claims
>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human
> beings
>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>>>
>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in a
> way
>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
> What I
>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because
> you
>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
> happened
>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>
>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this
> make
>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a
> threat
>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>>>
>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
> Heaven,
>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained
> by
>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>>>
>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the
> evil of
>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what
> has
>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>>> potential consequences of this.
>>>
>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour
> that I
>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now
> that
>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
> beliefs
>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>
>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>>>> human at the source.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>
>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then
> left
>>>> it
>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>
>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>>> effective
>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>> rules".
>>>>
>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine
> with
>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to
> say
>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
> here
>>>> --
>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then.
> And
>>>> I'm
>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's
> just
>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>>>>> human
>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired
> by
>>>> a
>>>>> supreme being.
>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>> themselves...
>>>>
>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What
> do
>>>> you
>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>>>>> rice?
>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
>>>> 500?
>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>>>>> their
>>>>> families.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or
> maimed.
>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think
> of
>>>> some
>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's
> a
>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits
> and
>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sarah
>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>>>> would have to.
>>>>
>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves to
> do
>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>
>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>
>>>> DC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71341 is a reply to message #71339] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 22:08 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
them?
>
Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at a local
church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and American
Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims whether they
would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of other
religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before the
Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he never
gave a straight answer.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3f062@linux...
>
> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing for
> disagreement.
>
> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the nightly
> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
>
> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango to
> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors concluded
> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
>
> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
them?
>
> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people with
> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used and
> manipulated in the process.
>
> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
>
> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> >> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
> >> nature of reality.
> >
> > I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the nightly
news
> > bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
> > justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
rather
> > be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife would
rather
> > die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3ae02@linux...
> >> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
dialog
> >> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
> >> nature of reality.
> >>
> >> Great post, Sarah.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >> Sarah wrote:
> >>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
learned
> >>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
compelled
> > to
> >>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
wrong
> > in
> >>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying
to
> > view
> >>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call
> > "me."
> >>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith
is
> >>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
rest
> > on
> >>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition
> > if
> >>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me.
If
> > you
> >>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
> >>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
> >>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
> >>>
> >>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
personally
> > do
> >>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see
no
> >>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
claims.
> > I
> >>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
> >>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
> >>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial
> > and
> >>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's
> > silly
> >>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the
> > sky."
> >>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite,
my
> >>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
dogma
> > that
> >>> I have no reason to believe.
> >>>
> >>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words:
I
> >>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time
> > ago),
> >>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe
> > that
> >>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
> > smattering
> >>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it
> > claims
> >>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human
> > beings
> >>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is
the
> >>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
> >>>
> >>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in
a
> > way
> >>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT
you
> >>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
> > What I
> >>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because
> > you
> >>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
parents
> >>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
> > happened
> >>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born
in
> >>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
> >>>
> >>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
> >>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this
> > make
> >>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a
> > threat
> >>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
> >>>
> >>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share
with
> >>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
> >>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
> > Heaven,
> >>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
> >>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
on
> >>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
> >>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained
> > by
> >>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
> >>>
> >>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the
> > evil of
> >>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
what
> > has
> >>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
believe
> >>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
> >>> potential consequences of this.
> >>>
> >>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour
> > that I
> >>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now
> > that
> >>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings
to
> >>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
> > beliefs
> >>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are
not
> >>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
> >>>
> >>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
> >>>
> >>> Sarah
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
> >>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
> >>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
faith.
> >>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
> >>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
> >>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
> >>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
> >>>> human at the source.
> >>>>
> >>>> I disagree emphatically.
> >>>>
> >>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
> >>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
> >>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then
> > left
> >>>> it
> >>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
competition.
> >>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
> >>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
> >>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
> >>>> they do? All is permitted.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not God's plan for us.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> The
> >>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
> >>>>> effective
> >>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
> >>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
> >>>> rules".
> >>>>
> >>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
> >>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine
> > with
> >>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to
> > say
> >>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
> > here
> >>>> --
> >>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then.
> > And
> >>>> I'm
> >>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
It's
> > just
> >>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
backward
> >>>>> human
> >>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
inspired
> > by
> >>>> a
> >>>>> supreme being.
> >>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
> >>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
> >>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
> >>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
> >>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
> >>>> themselves...
> >>>>
> >>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
> >>>> assumptions about existence.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
> >>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What
> > do
> >>>> you
> >>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of
brown
> >>>>> rice?
> >>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
100?
> >>>> 500?
> >>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent
and
> >>>>> their
> >>>>> families.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or
> > maimed.
> >>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think
> > of
> >>>> some
> >>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but
it's
> > a
> >>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
jumpsuits
> > and
> >>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sarah
> >>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
> >>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
> >>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
> >>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
> >>>> would have to.
> >>>>
> >>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves
to
> > do
> >>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
> >>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
> >>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
> >>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
> >>>>
> >>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
> >>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
> >>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to
kill
> >>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
> >>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
> >>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
> >>>>
> >>>> DC
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71343 is a reply to message #71341] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 23:00 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It's all retaliatory. That's the beauty of the Hatfield/McCoy vicious cycle.
We retaliated against Iraq for 9/11, even though Iraq was not involved
in the attack.
No problem, we created a new policy of preemptive retaliation!
Preemptive retaliation, think about that oxymoron. Very creative. Lots
of pins dropped when we came up with that one.
I dunno Deej. I think your forum was a good step. I suppose some of what
you observed there illustrates the challenge we're talking about.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
> them?
> Interesting that you should ask. there was recently a forum held at a local
> church here. there were Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and American
> Indians. Things were going nicely until a Jew asked the Muslims whether they
> would renounce the use of non-retaliatory violence against those of other
> religions. You could have heard a pin drop for about 10 seconds before the
> Muslim gentleman started scooting around like a crawdad........and he never
> gave a straight answer.
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3f062@linux...
>> Reality is measurable. The nature of reality is often debated. The
>> challenge is to accept and respect each other while still allowing for
>> disagreement.
>>
>> Can't let the other go without comment: The bloodletting on the nightly
>> news is just a drop in the bucket, we don't see most of it.
>>
>> Were the Muslims in Saddam's Iraq just about to march over to Durango to
>> convert your wife? Maybe with all of those WMD the inspectors concluded
>> weren't there? Wouldn't work anyway, she'd sic your big dogs on 'em!
>>
>> What about the Muslims already in Durango, what are you gonna do about
> them?
>> Maybe the problem isn't Muslims. Maybe the problem is that people with
>> little opportunity turn to fanatics for help and hope, and are used and
>> manipulated in the process.
>>
>> I don't know why we turn to fanatics here. Fear?
>>
>> Muslims, the new, improved "commies." They're in your closet. They're
>> after your wife. Vote for me and I'll $$olve the problem!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
>>>> nature of reality.
>>> I think reality is pretty cut and dried and is evidenced by the nightly
> news
>>> bloodletting. I think the differences are defined in terms of who is
>>> justified in killing whom and for what reason. Thing is, I think I'd
> rather
>>> be dead than be forced to be a mulsim.......and I know my wife would
> rather
>>> die........and she's mean enough to take quite a few with her.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:44e3ae02@linux...
>>>> One of the biggest challenges we face is how to have constructive
> dialog
>>>> between people who operate from very different assumptions about the
>>>> nature of reality.
>>>>
>>>> Great post, Sarah.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sarah wrote:
>>>>> (heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I
> learned
>>>>> years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel
> compelled
>>> to
>>>>> make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently
> wrong
>>> in
>>>>> your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying
> to
>>> view
>>>>> me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call
>>> "me."
>>>>> First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith
> is
>>>>> essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not
> rest
>>> on
>>>>> logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition
>>> if
>>>>> you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me.
> If
>>> you
>>>>> have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>>>>> gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>>>> demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I
> personally
>>> do
>>>>> not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see
> no
>>>>> evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent
> claims.
>>> I
>>>>> do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>>>>> connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>>>>> "supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial
>>> and
>>>>> frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's
>>> silly
>>>>> to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the
>>> sky."
>>>>> I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite,
> my
>>>>> mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient
> dogma
>>> that
>>>>> I have no reason to believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words:
> I
>>>>> have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time
>>> ago),
>>>>> and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe
>>> that
>>>>> the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a
>>> smattering
>>>>> of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it
>>> claims
>>>>> to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human
>>> beings
>>>>> whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is
> the
>>>>> word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in
> a
>>> way
>>>>> that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT
> you
>>>>> believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
>>> What I
>>>>> don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because
>>> you
>>>>> were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your
> parents
>>>>> believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you
>>> happened
>>>>> to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born
> in
>>>>> India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>>>> omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this
>>> make
>>>>> any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a
>>> threat
>>>>> to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>>>>>
>>>>> You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share
> with
>>>>> other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>>>>> wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
>>> Heaven,
>>>>> or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>>>>> accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
> on
>>>>> sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>>>>> necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
> restrained
>>> by
>>>>> fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>> And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the
>>> evil of
>>>>> "ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about
> what
>>> has
>>>>> been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I
> believe
>>>>> that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>>>>> potential consequences of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour
>>> that I
>>>>> could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now
>>> that
>>>>> the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings
> to
>>>>> them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again,
>>> beliefs
>>>>> are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are
> not
>>>>> wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by
> faith.
>>>>>>> (Speaking from personal experience).
>>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>>>>>> human at the source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then
>>> left
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than
> competition.
>>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> "Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>>>>> effective
>>>>>>> way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>>>> rules".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine
>>> with
>>>>>>> the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to
>>> say
>>>>>>> "what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
>>> here
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then.
>>> And
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>> sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me.
> It's
>>> just
>>>>>>> stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly
> backward
>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>> societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been
> inspired
>>> by
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> supreme being.
>>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>>>> themselves...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>>>>>> (conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What
>>> do
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of
> brown
>>>>>>> rice?
>>>>>>> I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists?
> 100?
>>>>>> 500?
>>>>>>> 1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent
> and
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> families.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or
>>> maimed.
>>>>>>> If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think
>>> of
>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but
> it's
>>> a
>>>>>>> nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange
> jumpsuits
>>> and
>>>>>>> chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>>>>>> would have to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves
> to
>>> do
>>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to
> kill
>>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh g-wd . . [message #71344 is a reply to message #71315] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 23:40 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wow, I am impressed with both the number of people interested in
this topic, and with their civility. So, I will respond here.
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>(heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
>years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
to
>make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
in
>your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to
view
>me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
So, what you believe does not need to be actually true (as in
reflecting reality) but can be true for you alone? Your reality?
This, of course, begs the question of the existence of God, since
your system does not allow for objectivity. You define the "god"
that you need, correct?
Christians believe in an objective creator and absolute morality.
We do not know all of it, and we certainly don't live up to it very
often, but we aspire to it because we believe it to be *real*. It is
a truth claim.
Reality is that which makes universal claims to truth, not a unique
set of views that works for one person only. I believe in a perfect
and objective reality that I aspire to understand some day. I firmly
believe that there is all the evidence I need to understand my role
in life and what the future holds for me however.
>First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith is
>essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest on
>logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition if
>you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me.
It's inadequate. Faith is really the active participation of humanity,
in the context of millions of pieces of supportive evidence,
with our eyes wide open, in the creative activity of understanding
and being a part of, existence, as it really is.
It is not blind in the least.
>If you
>have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
No one else can explain it either. It's kind of.. ummm... the warping
of the space-time fabric around objects that possess sufficent mass.
Whatever that means.
Ok, the universe is expanding. Hubble's constant, supported
by thousands of observations and experiments, proves it.
But wait, there's not enough mass to explain this... Ok, it must be
"dark matter" (don't ask), oh no, it's actually "vibrating strings"
which account for the missing mass (really, don't ask!).
No one has ever seen such things. But they make the equations
work out, so they or something like them, may be true.
Does this process sound a lot like my description of faith above?
Of course it does
You simply must discard the mistaken notion that there is objective
evidence that makes faith blind. There is not.
>Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally
do
>not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
>evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
I
>do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>"supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial and
>frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's silly
>to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the sky."
>I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite, my
>mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
that
>I have no reason to believe.
No, you can make it up as you go along. Which of course, makes
you "god", doesn't it? How can you possibly be so sure that
God has not tried to contact us, and that Jesus was not who he said
he was? You believe he was not and your belief is based upon
at minimum, the work and traditions of atheists.
But, if God is real, the Creator God whose son was called Jesus,
then it is reasonable that He is interested in communicating with
us. Who has cast "god" solely in her own "unique" model, and who
has placed God outside of us all and needing to be known?
Who has anthropomorphized whom?
How does your "god" differ from an idealized Sarah Jane? How do
you answer atheists and natrualists who call your ideas mere
wishful thinking and comforting myth making?
My God does not fill me with warm feelings very often. He rarely
thrills me and makes me feel loved. Mostly He teaches me, and
sometimes in brutal fashion, how far I need to go from this
wretched being I am. I sometimes really dislike God a lot for kicking
my ass so hard and so regularly.
Religious? I dunno how you can call me that...
Now, when I look backwards at my life, and I see how God has
led me through things that should have literally killed me, or at least
*ruined* my life, and I look at who I am vs. who I would have been
without Him, I shudder at how close a call it has been, and I thank
Him again for saving me in spite of myself.
>Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words: I
>have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time ago),
>and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe that
>the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
>of history.
The best reason of all is the unbroken line of millions of serious and
devout Christians who considered the Bible important enough to
dedicate their lives to making sure it did not die out. I have lived
through several generations now, and I have seen God raise up those
who will carry on the tradition into the next generation so it will not
be lost to the world. No, I do not believe every word to be the word
of God, but God's thoughts are there, even if imperfectly (or at
least apprently imperfect to us)
Those people have done so precisely because the Bible tells
the story of the redemption of humanity, and redemption is our
only hope as the wretched middle east makes so clear.
There is no spiritual tradition with Jesus Christ in it other than the
Christian church, and Jesus is the central figure in human history.
I call it "the great Christian church invisible", consisting of those who
are truly commited to God. No other tradition explains the world
as we see it and offers a better solution to what we see. It is most
definetely NOT a denomination with a name. But you sure know it
when you walk into one.
There are many other reasons to believe the Bible, but the best of
reason of all is your search for God.
You have to have more than a "sleeping god" who fumbles his way
through our lives. You have to be humble enough to be taught and
be corrected. You have to honestly search for God outside of
yourself and your preconceptions.
BTW, the Hindus believe that when they play that wonderful
raga music, if they do it well enough, and they really open
themselves to it, that the note at the heart of the universe will
fly right out of their instruments for w while. You know what? I
think I have heard them do it! So much for the right-wing
patriot Bible Belt sort of image of me huh?
Of course people in other traditions can be saved! I had a dream
one night where the Dalai Lama went to heaven and met Jesus.
He did not know who Jesus was at first, but as they conversed,
the Lama said: "This voice, I have heard this voice before"...
And indeed he has. At least IMO.
This is how I see it: Those who seek God will find Him, no matter
where they start. Every human soul is born with the Holy Spirit
speaking to it, and it is our response to the voice that determines
our destiny, not our tradition.
Just because I believe the Christian tradition to be the right one
does not make God unavailable to non Christians. Even the Catholics
believe this.
I do not care if you go to Sunday School. I care very much that
you cannot envision a God that is at minimum, competent and
loving, and interested in us. Most of all, the Christian church is
the rock you build your foundation on to stand in these times.
There is no other.
>And if the bible is the
>word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
Ok, how about this:
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy_collection/pr2003 028a/web_print
It seems the word is everywhere. But the Bible has everything
you need to be saved. thank God.
>Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in a
way
>that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
>believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years. What
I
>don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope?
It give me hope because it took the lies away. The lies of the evil
one. It gives me hope because it tells me the truth. It gives me
hope because it connects me to the almighty.
>Because you
>were desperate for answers and a bible was handy?
No, because I hated the church, and I called out to God, and he
led me back. I still hate it, but I am learning how to make it better.
>Because your parents believed it?
That lasted till about10 years old for me...
>Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus?
Never dropped acid. Always seemed a dumb-sh*t thing to do. sorry
>Because you happened to be born here rather than India or Iran?
See above...
>And if you had been born in India or Iran, would you be just as fervently
Hindu or Muslim?
See above...
>Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this make
>any sense?
Do you have sins? I know I do. Where did this come from? This
"sin" thing? It happened first when humans decided they knew
better than God, what they should do. Boy, I wish we could take
that one back. And so we sin to this day. We needed a way out,
a way to escape the natural consequences of sin, that being
seperation from God, the source of life. When they Deluxe Reverb
gets unplugged from the wall, the music goes away. When the
human gets unplugged from God, the human goes away. Jesus
was the great liberator of humanity. He provided a way to re-enter
a healthy relationship with the almighty, and hey, it only requires
a bit of trust and faith. What a deal!
>You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
>other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God, Heaven,
>or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>accordingly.
I never said that! I said without God, there is no basis for right and
wrong other than what you think and what I think. Obviously, we
think a lot about all this, and we have been trying to come up with
secular models for morality since the Enlightenment, but they have
all failed because they are all purely self-referential. Your model,
for instance, rests on the assumption that "everyone just knows
these things". I assure you they do not. This will get worse, not
better, in the future.
We can threaten people, we can impose our version or morality
with a gun, we can blather about "social contracts" and more,
but we cannot come up with a morality that is transcendant
and permanent. That's because only God has one.
Oh, and BTW, once again, you are arguing as an atheist:
----
>One does not need to believe in God, Heaven,
>or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong
----
But you claim to not be an atheist! But you also claim to not need
God for much of anything other than good feelings. Does God
inform your morality? In what way? If he does not, do you need Him?
>"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
>sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained
by
>fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
"God does not play with dice" Albert Einstein
"God not only plays with dice, but He throws them in a corner
where you cannot see them" Stephen Hawking
Seem like even Einstein gets revised. Why should a man care about
the things Einstein lists? Social pressure? Social contract?
And you accuse *God* of sleeping! How well is the alternative
working out so far??
>And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the evil
of
>"ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute.
Sure it is! They are excused as poverty-stricken victims of
american empire who have no other way to express themselves.
This bull is spewed out on a daily basis by the left. If you expressed
1/10 of the anger towards them, that you do towards the Bushies,
you would have vastly more credibility with me.
>I'm concerned about what has
>been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
>that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>potential consequences of this.
And you have a right to feel this way. You do not have a right to
blame Christians for it. There's lots of Christians who agree with you.
>But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour that
I
>could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now that
>the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
>them.
My beliefs are in constant growth as God leads me towards standing
up in these difficult times. But no, my faith in Jesus Christ is not
assailable. It would be like betraying my wife, only worse.
>You are of course free to believe what you want,
Gee thanks. Too bad you feel the need to ridicule them on such a
regular basis. Seems, for the left, like Christians are the only group
it is still cool to hate
>but again, beliefs
>are by definition unproven,
Not for me. See above. It's all beliefs.
You just view yours as objective and not as beliefs at all. This is
an illusion. The question always has been, are they true beliefs?
We come to different conclusions.
>and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
>wrong simply because they contradict yours.
Nor right. It is your search. All I can do is tell you of mine.
But If I am right, there are major consequences.
If I am wrong, hey, I still had a good life full of love, hope, kids and
confidence of my future. Beats existential dread, bongos and bad
poetry every time.
So,
You are walking down a dark alley, a bunch of young men come
fly out a door and walk your way. Would you prefer, or not prefer
that they are leaving a Bible study?
take care
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71347 is a reply to message #71320] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 03:11 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i didn't want to cause trouble by calling it #1
On 17 Aug 2006 06:17:12 +1000, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>I'd be interested to hear the nine candidates you would propose ahead of it.
>
>
>TCB
>
>rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>sarah
>>
>>everyone wants to be the holder of "the truth" and feel compelled to
>>convince others even if they have to kill them to do it. thankfully
>>not all go to that extreme...unfortunately many are willing to do just
>>that...on both sides of the argument. religion has to be in the top
>>ten killers of humanity throughout history.
>>
>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:00:26 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>(heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
>
>>>years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
>to
>>>make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
>in
>>>your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying to
>view
>>>me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
>>>
>>>First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith is
>
>>>essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest
>on
>>>logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition
>if
>>>you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me. If
>you
>>>have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>
>>>gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>>demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>
>>>Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally
>do
>>>not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see no
>
>>>evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
> I
>>>do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>>>connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>
>>>"supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial
>and
>>>frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's
>silly
>>>to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the
>sky."
>>>I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite, my
>
>>>mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
>that
>>>I have no reason to believe.
>>>
>>>Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words:
>I
>>>have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time
>ago),
>>>and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe that
>
>>>the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
>
>>>of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
>
>>>to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human beings
>
>>>whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is the
>
>>>word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>>>
>>>Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in
>a way
>>>that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
>
>>>believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years. What
>I
>>>don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because
>you
>>>were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
>
>>>believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you happened
>
>>>to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born in
>
>>>India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>
>>>Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>>omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this make
>
>>>any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a threat
>
>>>to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>>>
>>>You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
>
>>>other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>
>>>wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God, Heaven,
>
>>>or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>>>accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on
>
>>>sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>>>necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained
>by
>>>fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the evil
>of
>>>"ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what
>has
>>>been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
>
>>>that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>
>>>potential consequences of this.
>>>
>>>But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour that
>I
>>>could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now
>that
>>>the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings to
>
>>>them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
>
>>>are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are not
>
>>>wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>
>>>OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>
>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>"DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>>>>(Speaking from personal experience).
>>>>
>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>>>> human at the source.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>
>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then
>left
>>>> it
>>>>>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>
>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The
>>>>>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>>>effective
>>>>
>>>>>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>>
>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>> rules".
>>>>
>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine
>with
>>>>
>>>>>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to
>say
>>>>
>>>>>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest here
>>>> --
>>>>>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then.
>And
>>>> I'm
>>>>>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's
>just
>>>>
>>>>>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>
>>>>>human
>>>>
>>>>>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired
>by
>>>> a
>>>>>supreme being.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>> themselves...
>>>>
>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>>>>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What
>do
>>>> you
>>>>>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>
>>>>>rice?
>>>>
>>>>>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
>>>> 500?
>>>>>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>
>>>>>their
>>>>
>>>>>families.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>>>>
>>>>>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think
>of
>>>> some
>>>>>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's
>a
>>>>
>>>>>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits
>and
>>>>
>>>>>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sarah
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>>>> would have to.
>>>>
>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves
>to do
>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>
>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to kill
>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>
>>>> DC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oh gawd . . [message #71351 is a reply to message #71347] |
Thu, 17 August 2006 06:05 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Here's the thing, you'll cause just as much trouble saying it's #5 or #10
as #1. And I suspected you thought as much which is why I asked. Maybe not.
Influenza takes a few hundred thousand per year in the off years, so maybe
over the long haul it's first, just by the yearly grind. But even then I
doubt it.
But in any case, just tell the truth as you see it, regardless of the trouble
it might cause. We need more of that.
TCB
rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>i didn't want to cause trouble by calling it #1
>
>On 17 Aug 2006 06:17:12 +1000, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'd be interested to hear the nine candidates you would propose ahead of
it.
>>
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>sarah
>>>
>>>everyone wants to be the holder of "the truth" and feel compelled to
>>>convince others even if they have to kill them to do it. thankfully
>>>not all go to that extreme...unfortunately many are willing to do just
>>>that...on both sides of the argument. religion has to be in the top
>>>ten killers of humanity throughout history.
>>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:00:26 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>(heavy sigh) I'm not sure why I'm continuing with this . . . I learned
>>
>>>>years ago you can't argue with a religious person. Yet I feel compelled
>>to
>>>>make my views clear to you, since you are pretty much consistently wrong
>>in
>>>>your assumptions about what I'm saying. I think you're still trying
to
>>view
>>>>me as a "type" rather than just as that unique thing I like to call "me."
>>>>
>>>>First of all, the term "blind faith" is pretty much redundant. Faith
is
>>
>>>>essentially, by definition, blind. Faith is "belief that does not rest
>>on
>>>>logical proof or material evidence." You can have your own definition
>>if
>>>>you need to, but that's from the dictionary, and makes sense to me.
If
>>you
>>>>have proof or evidence, it's not longer a belief, is it? I believe in
>>
>>>>gravity, even though I can't explain it to you. It's obviously,
>>>>demonstrably, and universally agreeably real.
>>>>
>>>>Second, I am not saying God is unknowable . . . I'm saying I personally
>>do
>>>>not know who or what created this universe or when or why, and I see
no
>>
>>>>evidence that anyone else does either, in spite of their fervent claims.
>> I
>>>>do believe in a higher power which is very exhilarating to feel truly
>>>>connected to, but the attempts of religion in general to describe this
>>
>>>>"supreme being" anthropomorphically just strike me as very superficial
>>and
>>>>frankly, kind of childish. I put "God" in quotes because I think it's
>>silly
>>>>to try and turn this awesome everpresent life force into a "guy in the
>>sky."
>>>>I do not "blind" myself with this point of view. Quite the opposite,
my
>>
>>>>mind is wide open to spiritual experience, not limited to ancient dogma
>>that
>>>>I have no reason to believe.
>>>>
>>>>Which leads me to the real point I was hoping to make in fewer words:
>>I
>>>>have been arguing these ideas with believers since I was 17 (LONG time
>>ago),
>>>>and in all that time not ONE of them has given me a REASON to believe
that
>>
>>>>the bible is anything more than legend, parable, mythology, and a smattering
>>
>>>>of history. I should believe it's the word of God why? Because it claims
>>
>>>>to be? Those are the claims of Roman bishops and other ancient human
beings
>>
>>>>whose motives and honesty I know nothing about. And if the bible is
the
>>
>>>>word of God, I'm not impressed. I expect better from a supreme being.
>>>>
>>>>Like the dozens before you, you tell me repeatedly what you believe in
>>a way
>>>>that suggests no opposing belief can possibly be true. I know WHAT you
>>
>>>>believe, I've heard it a thousand times over the last 30-some years.
What
>>I
>>>>don't know is WHY you believe it. Because it gives you hope? Because
>>you
>>>>were desperate for answers and a bible was handy? Because your parents
>>
>>>>believed it? Because you dropped acid and saw Jesus? Because you happened
>>
>>>>to be born here rather than India or Iran? And if you had been born
in
>>
>>>>India or Iran, would you be just as fervently Hindu or Muslim?
>>>>
>>>>Nor has anyone ever been able to explain the logic in a supposedly
>>>>omnipotent being sending his son to die for our sins. How does this
make
>>
>>>>any sense? Isn't it more likely that Jesus simply became enough of a
threat
>>
>>>>to the Romans and the Jewish heirarchy that they decided to kill him?
>>>>
>>>>You speak a lot about assumptions. OK, here's one you seem to share with
>>
>>>>other believers that drives me nuts: without God there is no right or
>>
>>>>wrong. This is such nonsense. One does not need to believe in God,
Heaven,
>>
>>>>or Hell to know the difference between right and wrong and to behave
>>>>accordingly. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
on
>>
>>>>sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
>>>>necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained
>>by
>>>>fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
>>>>
>>>>And finally, I didn't mention "ghouls and head choppers" because the
evil
>>of
>>>>"ghouls and head choppers" is not in dispute. I'm concerned about what
>>has
>>>>been done and is being done in my name as an American, because I believe
>>
>>>>that to also be evil and I'm just a little more than worried about the
>>
>>>>potential consequences of this.
>>>>
>>>>But I have to be honest . . . I feel like I just wasted another hour
that
>>I
>>>>could have been catching up on sleep in. I should have learned by now
>>that
>>>>the more you challenge fixed beliefs, the harder the believer clings
to
>>
>>>>them. You are of course free to believe what you want, but again, beliefs
>>
>>>>are by definition unproven, and therefore someone else's beliefs are
not
>>
>>>>wrong simply because they contradict yours.
>>>>
>>>>OK, I mean it this time . . . I give up.
>>>>
>>>>Sarah
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"DC" <dc@spammersinmaui.com> wrote in message news:44e23a46$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>The problem with blind faith is that one risks being blinded by faith.
>>>>>>(Speaking from personal experience).
>>>>>
>>>>> Faith in God is not blind. What is blind is the choice to call God
>>>>> unknowable. That is a choice to remain blind, and its source is
>>>>> solely and admittedly, human. Your assumption is that all views are
>>>>> human at the source.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree emphatically.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything prodeeds from one's assumptions. Even considering
>>>>> that the creator cared enough to send his son to die for us,
>>>>> changes the whole world. Scary huh?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps the only thing "God" ever said to us was "Survive!" and then
>>left
>>>>> it
>>>>>>up to us to figure out that cooperation works better than competition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If God is in quotes for you, then why would "god's" opinion
>>>>> matter? Well it doesn't of course. Survive, don't survive, bake
>>>>> cookies, bake Jews, who is to say no? Why should anyone care if
>>>>> they do? All is permitted.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not God's plan for us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>"Golden Rule" is not simply a nice idea, it's a very practical and
>>>>>>effective
>>>>>
>>>>>>way to live peacefully with our fellow humans.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the greedy dirtbag says "the one with the gold makes the
>>>>> rules".
>>>>>
>>>>> And you disapprove. With only "god" (otherwise known as Sarah's
>>>>> opinion) to rebut him, why should he care?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>As far as speculating on the afterlife, I just don't care. I'm fine
>>with
>>>>>
>>>>>>the mystery, in fact, I like a good mystery. Sure, it can be fun to
>>say
>>>>>
>>>>>>"what if this . . . " or "what if that . . . " but let's be honest
here
>>>>> --
>>>>>>none of us will know until the time comes, and maybe not even then.
>>And
>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>sorry, but "because the bible tells me so" doesn't work for me. It's
>>just
>>>>>
>>>>>>stuff that was written by the brighter members of some fairly backward
>>
>>>>>>human
>>>>>
>>>>>>societies thousands of years ago who may or may not have been inspired
>>by
>>>>> a
>>>>>>supreme being.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you cannot see that this is merely your view, not fact.
>>>>> It is an assertion that there are no miracles, that God does not
>>>>> care if we have a we to know Him or not, that things proceeded in
>>>>> the past as they do today, and Jesus' death and resurrection are
>>>>> human myths created, as all "god talk" is, by humans to comfort
>>>>> themselves...
>>>>>
>>>>> You may not be an atheist, but you accept *all* of their basic
>>>>> assumptions about existence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Meanwhile, back to the original topic: picture 100,000 dead Iraqis
>>>>>>(conservative estimate). Picture them all together in a pile. What
>>do
>>>>> you
>>>>>>think . . . would it fill a football stadium, like a big bowl of brown
>>
>>>>>>rice?
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know, but now tell me how many of those were terrorists? 100?
>>>>> 500?
>>>>>>1000? It doesn't matter does it? Not to those who were innocent and
>>
>>>>>>their
>>>>>
>>>>>>families.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now picture 2500 dead American soldiers and the 62,000 wounded or maimed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>If we were lied into this "war" based on hidden agendas, I can think
>>of
>>>>> some
>>>>>>heads of state whose heads should roll. They probably won't, but it's
>>a
>>>>>
>>>>>>nice thought. Picture Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in orange jumpsuits
>>and
>>>>>
>>>>>>chains . . . ni-i-i-i-i-ice. I feel better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sarah
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And it is this view that conerns me that we, as a people, are no
>>>>> longer able to protect freedom. There were innocents killed in all
>>>>> wars. This is no different. Would you broadcast from Dresden
>>>>> or Nagasaki calling for the jailing of Truman? By your rules, you
>>>>> would have to.
>>>>>
>>>>> We now have a whole generation of people who cannot bring themselves
>>to do
>>>>> what they must to protect our way of life.
>>>>> Given that we face the most evil and implacable enemy in many
>>>>> years, I am not sure that we will retain the freedom that those
>>>>> WWII vets you admire so much, fought and died for.
>>>>>
>>>>> And finally, notice please, not one word of condemnation for the
>>>>> ghouls and head choppers. Those who would use baby bottles
>>>>> for binary explosives and die, with their infant in their arms, to
kill
>>>>> some of us. Not one word. This is why you simply are not
>>>>> convincing me here. It is selective pacifism, pointed only at
>>>>> Israel and the west and there is no righteousness in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> DC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Dec 19 03:00:11 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.20940 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
